Comments

In this day and age of the LHC, the Higgs boson and dark matter (wimps = weakly interacting massive particles), the people of Burma should give up this primitive (and “oxymoronic”) concept of ethnicity. What’s the exact biological definition of race anyway (even the Nazis couldn’t quite define it lol). Tribalism is not going to be the way of the future for the human species (we all came out of Africa). I am proud to be descended from amphibians!

Amendment to second paragraph

…. as there is no legal requirement or ruling to make changes by this method.

Should read

….as there is no legal requirement or ruling to hold a referendum to make changes by this method.

I’m not going to belittle your concern which might be legitimate but I’m baffled by this piece. It is a gross simplification of a complex situation. There are psychological, social, political and historical reasons for the values, views and attitudes of members of the various social classes not only here but in any country. The same applies to human reactions to distant tragedies, particularly when they are seen through the magnifying lens of dominant media.

As I said, your concern may be valid but your analysis of “disconnect from Thailand” and “connect with US” is completely off the mark

When Thais ask me where I am from, I usually say “Boston”, even though I have never lived there, because my hometown is within 100 miles of the city, and I used to frequently fly in and out of Boston’s Logan Airport, so this tragedy hit quite close to home for me. I also know a quite a few Thais who have visited Boston or studied in New England.

I can understand the outpouring of sympathy for the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing by the people of Thailand, and not just among the “hi-so” who have lived there. I must agree that what Khun Cod has written is true; Thais have become numb to the ongoing horrific violence in the three southernmost provinces. I believe part of the reason for this is that people from Bangkok don’t really relate to or think about the people of Yala, Pattani, and Narathiwat as “Thai”. I frequently hear people who live there referred to as Malay, simply because the majority are not Buddhists. The attitudes (and the history) suggest that the solution to the deep South problem must involve the establishment of an autonomous governing region for what was once the Sultante of Pattani, however much this concept is resisted by central government authorities.

On a somewhat related issue, I had to laugh when Deputy PM Chalerm said yesterday that Thailand does not have to worry because it is not a target of terrorism. Nothing could be further from the truth. The experts who ought to know these things have rated Thailand as having the highest risk for terrorist attack among any of the ASEAN countries. I believe it is quite likely that there are both Sunni Al Qaeda and Shi’a Iranian sleeper cells operating within striking distance of both civilian and military targets in Bangkok.

Liam Hanlon, a political analyst at Cascade Asia Advisors, a research firm focused on Southeast Asia, has this to say about Malaysia’s fiscal stance over at the Lowy Interpreter.

Malaysia’s deficits are not inherently irresponsible, but there is another, more concerning, trend: a tide of ‘hidden’ public debt. This includes contingent liabilities such as government guarantees on debt and ‘off balance sheet’ borrowings. Such debt has more than doubled since Najib took office in 2009, and comes from government entities that fund massive transportation and infrastructure projects. It is not inconceivable that these liabilities may eventually find their way on the federal balance sheet.

1.There is NO requirement to have a referendum to amend the constitution (and it has already been amended in the previous parliament by the Democrat Party led coalition).
2.The (military coup imposed) constitution did pass a referendum, but the circumstances of that referndum were clearly NOT free and fair (campaigning against it was illegal, if rejected the military could pick a constitution of its own choosing etc etc)
3. If the government chooses to have a referendum to counter views that changes to the 2007 constitution needs ‘approval’ of the people, fine, but its clear there is a trap in the current referendum rules – would you still be so keen on a referendum if voting in it was compulsory (with a strictly enforced penalty for not voting), or a referendum using the same rules under which the 2007 referendum was held?

Talking about concensus is meaningless (and insidious) unless you apply the same standards to the coupsters & the network behind them.

Nganadeeleg you wrote ‘IMO, there’s an insidious trap in the new referendum rules which require a quorum of more than 50% turnout, as there is little incentive for opponents of the referendum proposal to vote NO when strategically their cause is better served by them not even bothering to turn up and vote’

I was not going to respond as there is no point, but I will try one more time. There is a problem in how you interpret the referendum rules. There is no ‘insidious trap’ as the quorum rules are clearly laid out.

The quorum can be met if there is a broad consensus in society and politicians on constitutional amendments; their purposes and the mechanisms. The quorum in fact prevents one side of the political spectrum ramming through changes that do not have the support of society at large.

I can understand why PT is loath to undertake one as they are anything but open and transparent about this process.

Its actually quite a wise way in which frame a referendum, it prevents any particular interest group taking control.

Its people like johninbkk with their strawman arguments and misrepresentations that poison the atmosphere of open discussion.

Ok Johninbkk’s we won’t quibble anymore, I didn’t like the way you presented the ‘facts’ in your post, it misrepresents the situation surrounding the amendment process.

Not mentioning the CDA in reference to 291 is very odd.

If the PT wants to emulate the party of the Amart, I for one am not surprised.

@Nganadeeleg, “The Democrat Party changed the constitution without a referendum, and so can PT Party.”
Section 291 documents how to amend in Parliament, as you mention the Dems did. It does not mention anything about a referendum, and as such a referendum holds zero legal weight.

@Longway, “The change to 291 was to allow a charter drafting assembly to change the constitution nothing to do with a referendum.”
The plan was for a charter drafting assembly to develop a new charter, which was then to be voted on in a referendum afterwards. See above comment.

There is however confusion on whether a referendum should be held before or after a new charter has been written, or perhaps even before *and* after a new charter is written.

“Take a step away from RA’s blog or wherever you are getting your misinformation for a few days.”
I get my misinformation from BangkokPost. And I read the Constitution.

“He was back in the Ministry of Love, with everything forgiven, his soul white as snow. He was in the public dock, confessing everything, implicating everybody. He was walking down the white-tiled corridor, with the feeling of walking in sunlight, and an armed guard at his back. The longhoped-for bullet was entering his brain.

He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”