“If we use less time than set in the timeframe then the general election can be brought faster,” he said.

He downplayed a comment by Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) chairman Meechai Ruchupan that the election might take place in early 2018 at the latest.

“There could be some procedures that are beyond [our] control, so it is alright to allow additional time. But I would like it to be held by next year and the prime minister has insisted he would not stay on longer,” Wissanu said.

Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan said political parties would be allowed to hold meetings soon, adding that the referendum results suggested that the people wanted the country to move forward.

National Legislative Assembly (NLA) president Pornpetch Wichitcholchai said the next step after the referendum is for the CDC to amend the draft to adjust provisions that would allow the appointed Senate to select the next prime minister. That process must be finished within 30 days.

The amended draft will be forwarded to the Constitutional Court for approval within the 30-day period. If the court rules the draft does not need to be changed and forwards it to the prime minister, he has another 30 days to seek a royal endorsement. If the court rules the draft must be amended, the CDC has 15 days to do so.

“Don’t dissolve parties”

The interim charter of 2014 stipulates that the CDC must draft four organic laws related to political parties and elections and the process preceding the general election. The CDC should expedite that drafting process because the NLA needs 60 days to pass the legislation, Pornpetch said.

Meechai, however, said he had doubts about whether there would be problems arising from the additional referendum question in case MPs and the Senate do not select the prime minister from the list presented by political parties.

The additional question stipulates that MPs can seek Senate approval to not pick the prime minister from the list presented by political parties.

But the referendum shows that most people wanted a joint Parliament to select the prime minister, Meechai said.

“What if the joint Parliament fails to select the prime minister from the lists presented by the political parties? How to solve this problem? We have to find out. But I insist that only the Lower House has the right to nominate prime minister candidates for both Houses to select,” he said.

Meechai said he wanted to discuss politics with politicians before drafting organic laws related to the electoral and political party systems.

Chat Thai Pattana Party leader Somsak Prissanananthakul said he would prefer the organic laws do not include provisions related to dissolving political parties, but have politicians and party executives punished individually if they commit crimes, including lifetime political bans.

He said “I do not agree with making all parties start from scratch or reset to zero because that is the same as destroying political institutions,” Somsak said.

There has been speculation that all political parties will be dissolved and new ones established to ensure all parties have an equal chance.

POLITICIANS were unable to influence voters in the Northeast as much as in previous ballots despite calls for a “No” vote to the military-backed constitution draft in Sunday’s referendum.

It is widely perceived that the Northeast, commonly known as Isaan, is the major stronghold of Pheu Thai Party, whose government was overthrown by the 2014 military coup.

Results from the referendum show 51 per cent of voters in the region disagreed with the draft, down from the 62.8 per cent of Isaan folk who opposed the military draft in the 2007 referendum.

Analysts believe that politicians did not influence the vote a great deal due to military suppression since the coup.

Pheu Thai politicians could do little to mobilise local support to vote the way they would have preferred, Attasit Pankaew, a political |scientist at Thammasat University, said.

The politicians did not stage activities during the lead-up to the referendum because they had few benefits to gain from doing so, critics say.

They would also be taking a risk, given that political activities were banned by the junta.

Nidhi Eoseewong, a well-known independent scholar, said in an interview with Prachatai that politicians can run a campaign in general elections and they build relationships with the people and both have mutual benefits. But in the referendum, politician were banned from any political campaigns.

“The voters did not ‘love’ the politicians that much to do whatever the politicians asked them to do,” the prominent historian said.

Some villagers in the country’s first red-shirt village, Ban Nong Hu Ling, which houses around 300 |supporters, had expected to see 90 per cent of votes rejecting the draft, but the result turned out to be less, village head Kongchai Chaikung said.

Kongchai was also a “Kru Kor” – an official trained by state agencies to spread the referendum issue to local people.

He told The Nation he did not expect the villagers to vote ‘Yes’ or believe what he had told them before the referendum.

He said he anticipated a relatively high “No” result in the region compared to the 2007 referendum. However, the voters in Isaan nearly approved the junta’s charter with 49 per cent backing it in Sunday’s referendum compared to 37 per cent in 2007.

That was partly because local people did not study or understand the constitution draft, he said. They did not digest the content of the draft, as they only received one-sided information from the “Yes” camp, he said.

“No chance”

“The dissent[ers] had no chance to campaign,” he said.

So, voters only made their decision based on their sentiment, some critics said.

Kongchai said people “really” want the referendum to be done and looked forward to the next general election. He said many villagers put high hopes on their future elected representatives.

“Many people still understand that if the draft passes, the economy will be better, the elderly will receive better social welfare, and the country will be well reformed following the junta’s roadmap,” the village head said.

“Only good things will come. So, why say ‘No’?” he said.

Attasit also said the narrow margin did not indicate that Isaan people had lost faith with their “once favourite” Pheu Thai Party, as the regional turnout was relatively low, around 50-55 per cent.

That compared to about 70 per cent turnouts for general elections over the past 10 years, he said.

The 20 per cent who did not vote did not want to take part in the referendum but would vote in the next general election, he said.

 

THE ELECTION Commission (EC) has sent a signal to police not to take legal action against people who destroyed ballot papers unintentionally while seeking to vote in the referendum.

EC deputy secretary-general Thanit Sriprathet said there had been 59 incidents of ballots being torn or destroyed in 35 provinces, mostly by senior citizens, and only one case in which a ballot paper was torn intentionally.

Thanit said two men associated with the New Democracy Movement (NDM) – Rangsiman Rome and Abhisit Supnapapan – face charges of violating the referendum law for wearing T-shirts with “Vote No” messages.

Peerapol Sae Wong also faces charges of violating the referendum law for allegedly taking a picture of a ballot paper in a polling station in Lop Buri.

Another NDM member, Piyarat Jongthep, who allegedly tore up a ballot paper in Bang Na in Bangkok, was released on bail after being charged with violating the referendum law and criminal offences.

In total, police pressed four charges against Piyarat, a student at Thammasat University’s Faculty of Law – destroying a ballot paper, causing a disturbance and blocking the referendum, destroying or tearing up a state document, and causing damage to state assets.

Police released him on Bt20,000 bail after he confessed and said he had no intention to flee.

Piyarat’s friends Songtham Kaewpanpruek and Jirawat Ekakaranuwat who took a video clip of Piyarat tearing up the ballot paper also face charges for allegedly violating the referendum law.

Metropolitan Police Division 5 Commander Pol Maj-General Somprasong Yentuam ordered police to investigate if the group staged the activity based on political connections and to wrap up the case in four days.

Somprasong said police found that one member of the group had forwarded the clip recorded on a mobile phone to a media outlet but refused to elaborate.

He said they could face charges of violating the Computer Crime Act and other laws.

Meanwhile, the Chiang Mai Military Court rejected a request for bail from the lawyer for 11 suspects charged with sedition, criminal association and violating the referendum law.

Lawyer Chamnong Chaimongkol arrived at the 33rd Army Circle to post bail for the 11 suspects. However, the court rejected the request on the grounds that there has not been a new order from the government.

Chamnong said he would seek bail again for the suspects next Monday.

Irregularities alleged

Meanwhile, Srisuwan Janya, secretary-general of the Association for the Protection of the Thai Constitution, said yesterday he would file a complaint with the National Anti-Corruption Commission accusing the EC of holding an unfair referendum.

Srisuwan said the EC failed to distribute the charter draft to every household and voters had not been given freedom to criticise the charter.

He said the EC also hastily announced unofficial results without investigating irregularities that took place.

He said there were reports that more ballot papers were counted at some polling stations than there were eligible voters.

He said the EC had also provided only one ballot paper for two questions, which caused confusion.

Srisuwan also said ballot boxes procured by the EC were not strong and safe, which violated EC regulations.

 

Among them were Buranii Chandraparnik, managing director of Piton Communications, and Jin Somroutai, political news editor at Nation News Agency.

Even Constitution Drafting Commission chairman Meechai Ruchupan and former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra got into the act.

Sudarat Disayawattana Chantrawatanakul also showed her thumbprint and posted her drawing to invite people to vote.

New Democracy Movement urged people to post images of their thumbs with the hashtag #voteno.

However Yunyong Teng-amnuay, a former engineering lecturer and an Internet pioneer in Thailand, warned people to be careful posting images of their thumbs on social media, presumably for security reasons. His thumb and those of his family members were covered with stickers in the image he posted.

Thanachart Numnonda, president of the Association of Thai ICT Industry, told social media users via his Facebook page that voters who posted images of their thumbs should delete them, as they could be copied.

Forensic scientist Weerachai Phutdhawong also took to Facebook to urge people not show their thumbprints on social media for the same reason.

The thumbprint could be cloned and the cloned print used in a criminal offence to fool police.

Cybersecurity expert Prinya Hom-anek echoed those concerns.

Manoj Lohatepanont shared a news link of a 2014 BBC report in which a computer hacker claimed to have cloned a thumbprint of a German politician by using commercial software and images taken at a news conference.

Narudom Roongsiriwong posted that yesterday was national identity leak day because so many people displayed their thumbprints online.

Narudom said the action was risky because thumbprints were used in touch ID.

 

The Election Commission (EC) allowed a number of foreign observers to monitor the referendum yesterday. A representative from Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (Foundation) and six election officials from Bhutan and East Timor (three each) were among the observers.

The delegation observed the entire voting process in different polling booths of four provinces – Nonthaburi, Prachin Buri, Chachoengsao, and Bangkok.

An observer, who declined to be named, said a referendum should not be conducted in a climate of fear with instances of suppression.

The voters should have been educated more about the gist of the draft, so they could have ideas about what to vote for or against, he said.

Some of the voters made emotional decisions, following the suggestions of their favourite political figures, he added.

A representative from Bhutan’s Election Commission, who asked not to be named, also expressed concern over rejection of overseas voting in the referendum.

Thais living abroad should have been able to take part in yesterday’s vote on the charter draft to decide their motherland’s fate, he said

According to earlier reports, an authority said that the reason is the draft is to be enacted in the Kingdom and hence Thai citizens living in the country should decide this issue. In previous general elections, since 1999, overseas voting had been approved but not in the referendums in 2007 and yesterday, said a source from the EC.

The Bhutanese observer said overseas voting was important, to respect the voting rights of compatriots.

He pointed out that the relatively complicated voting process for overseas voters might be an impediment, as the voters abroad have to send their ballots by post.

Another Bhutanese representative said the Thai referendum process was well prepared. He said his delegation appreciated two voting initiatives – a pilot polling booth at the Ban Bang Kae home for elderly and disabled people, and the “smart-card reader” used in three pilot polling stations of three separate provinces, including Prachin Buri.

The EC source said that with the smart-card reader, voters do not need to register manually in front of the booths. They only need to insert their ID cards into the machine.

Apart from the two initiatives, the source said in this referendum, the EC also experimented with registration of residence voting for outside provinces.

“Voters could exercise their rights without having to go back to their hometown,” he said.

According to reports, some voters tore up their ballots unintentionally.

They did so as they thought the dotted line separating the two questions of the referendum were to be separated.

The EC source said the commission would collect information and find out the number of cases in order to research and develop the voting process.

Unofficial watchdogs like Open Forum for Democracy Foundation, Asia Foundation, and the newly created We Watch said technical implementation went smoothly.

They said no major concerns or irregularities have been found and they needed to closely monitor the result.

“Even if the charter is passed, it will have no legitimacy, because there was no freedom to let people discuss the draft. This charter will create another political conflict,” said Prapart Pintobtang, a political science lecturer at Chulalongkorn University.

The “Referendum Monitoring” event at Sriburapa Hall was packed with people eagerly following the vote counting, even though many of them still expressed doubts about the legitimacy of the referendum.

Prapart said it looked like the “Yes” vote would win, but the new constitution will lack credibility and would lead to the next political chaos.

“If the constitution were to be approved, we will have to live under the NCPO [National Council for Peace and Order] regime for at least eight more years and the government that will be formed after the election will be similar to the General Prem Tinnasulanonda era.”

The country will be administered by the junta for eight years at least because other political players will not likely rule the country under the political structure defined by the new constitution, he said.

Charnwit Kasetsiri, a former Thammasat rector, said that no matter what the outcome, the activism inspired by the referendum showed that the young generation was now politically conscious.

“As we saw, the opposition to the constitution was heavily suppressed by the state, but this referendum showed that the new generation has already woken up.

“And democracy is now the major trend of the world and Thailand cannot avoid this trend,” he said.

“Thailand is undergoing a transition. We are going to see what we don’t expect to see, and what we’ve seen for a very long time will not stay any longer in the near future.”

At the sixth polling centre in Dusit district, an official said there had been no problem answering voters’ questions on any issue related to the main referendum question, as it was simple – whether the charter should be accepted or not.

However, the additional question was far more complicated. It took up four lines on the ballot, asking whether all members of Parliament should be allowed to select the prime minister.

“The second question asks whether you would like Parliament to select the PM,” one polling official said. “Please mark the left box with an ‘x’ if you agree with it, or mark the right box if you disagree,” an election official told voters.

But when The Nation asked the official who in Parliament would be authorised to do what, as stated in the question, the official replied, “I don’t know”.

Some voters said they came today to express their rejection of the ruling junta.

A 72-year-old man told The Nation his democratic ideology was the major factor in how he was going to vote.

“I didn’t really want to come vote today. I don’t want to be a part of this system. But I can’t let the military stay any longer,” he said.

A 59-year-old woman said she did not have time to give the charter a thorough study and was surprised to find another question.

“I read the question three to four times before getting what it says. It says that some unelected people in Parliament will also be allowed to choose the PM,” she said.

“I’m too busy making a living to read the draft. I also didn’t receive any copies of the contents.

“But I gathered something from what I heard from people around me,” she said in explaining how she was able to decide on how she would vote.

Patcharee Eiamkomla, assistant director of the Dusit District Office, said the estimated attendance at the sixth polling station should be satisfactory, except for people who came from other constituencies – only to find they were not able to vote.

“They didn’t know that they needed to register prior to voting day to cast their ballot outside their constituency [where they are registered as living], because they didn’t need to do that in previous elections,” she said.

“Regulations applied in this voting are very different from previous elections. We, officers, had to learn a lot about them, too.”