The historic result is worth repeating. The referendum saw 59.4 per cent of around 50 million eligible voters (29.7 million) vote on the new charter draft, surpassing the turnout in the 2007 referendum by between 2 and 3 per cent.

This time, 61.3 per cent (16.8 million) voted in support of the draft, while 38.6 per cent (10.5 million) voted against.

When it came to the second question, on whether an all-appointed Senate should be permitted to join elected members of the lower house in selecting a prime minister for its first five-year term – something pro-democracy supporters are strongly against – 58 per cent (15 million) voted in support, with 41.9 per cent (10.9 million) against.

What this means overall is that the people have spoken in favour, via direct democracy, of a new charter whose content does not meet modern standards of liberal democracy, especially in its provision for the first five years.

Whatever the level of knowledge behind the choice voters made, legitimacy for the road ahead has been established.

For pro-democracy supporters, this is a hard fact to accept, but one lesson they can take from this event is that, if they truly believe in democracy, this may be the best point to prove it by accepting the path laid out by the referendum result.

But getting everyone back on track won’t just be about pro-democracy supporters respecting the vote in a spirit of tolerance.

For a long time now, Thailand has dragged its feet on the path to meaningful democracy, with one side clamouring over the fundamental principle of individual rights and liberty while forgetting to respect the rights of others. Responsibility in our own thoughts and acts towards others has been sorely lacking.

Self-centredness has too often worn the mask of democracy to assert private interests without caring about the plight of others. This has resulted in what some social theorists are calling a state of “two countries in one nation”.

Failing to recognise the roots of that widening division, we suffered worsening political violence and then yet another coup.

Although some pro-democracy supporters remain dismayed with the referendum result, this is a time to nurture true and meaningful democracy by showing respect and responsibility towards others.

That also means that if something goes wrong with the choice we have made, the majority must be responsible for the consequences rather than leaving the “other side” to pick up the pieces as in the past, resulting in a plague of indifference that fuels conflict and division.

Social division can be healed with personal responsibility and regard for others’ rights. This post-referendum period presents a crucial test of whether we will be able to progress along the difficult terrain laid out ahead and discover a path that will accommodate all sides in an inclusive and meaningful way.

pypostbox@yahoo.com

The latest figures show Thai GDP grew 3.5 per cent in the second quarter, putting the economy on track for 3-3.5 per cent growth for the whole of 2016.

That’s better than Singapore, whose GDP rose a meagre 0.3 per cent in the second quarter. Due to the weak global economic outlook, the forecast for Singapore growth in 2016 has now been revised downward to 1-2 per cent for the year.

Thailand has managed to boost its momentum following multiple quarters of sluggish performance by jump-starting public sector investment in mega-infrastructure projects.

These projects range from multiple urban mass-transit lines in Bangkok and nearby provinces and double-rail projects in Central and Northeast provinces, to the Suvarnabhumi Airport expansion and three motorway schemes linking Bangkok with other parts of the country.

These ongoing and soon-to-be-launched projects will run over the next 3 to 5 years and are worth several-hundred-billion baht.

For the first time in more than a decade, the government has been able to jump-start these schemes, after delays caused by the frequent change of governments.

Kobsak Phutrakul, a vice minister at the PM’s office, told me that this government’s successful lead in driving forward the infrastructure investment projects was quite unprecedented and would convince the private sector to follow suit.

Previously, the political divide meant few major infrastructure schemes had been implemented, prompting analysts to warn the country was short of critical infrastructure investment.

Besides the government’s lead in such investment, Thailand’s economic growth momentum is being buoyed by recovering private consumption, improving farm and other commodity prices which are crucial to grass-roots purchasing power, and a relatively strong tourism sector.

Regarding the export sector, which remains the biggest engine of growth, the outlook is still uncertain but the negative fallout from China’s economic slowdown appear to have stabilised with a Chinese growth rate of around 6.6 per cent while impacts from Brexit should be further delayed due to the multiple years needed to implement the UK’s exit from European Union.

On the other hand, Singapore, a financial centre and major trading hub, is more closely linked with international trade and the global economy, so has suffered more negative impacts from external factors.

The island nation has cut its previous 2016 growth forecast of 3 per cent to only 1-2 per cent, citing Brexit and China’s economic risk from an upturn of debt defaults.

Overall, Asean economies are poised to grow 4.5 per cent this year, down 0.1 per cent from 2015. The regional grouping’s second quarter growth was projected to be around 4.5 per cent, down slightly from the first quarter’s 4.6 per cent.

Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia are leading the pack with growth rates of 7 per cent or higher for this year, with Brunei and Singapore at the other end of the growth spectrum.

Thailand is now moving towards the middle range of growth after lagging behind other Aseancountries for years.

At a growth rate of 3-3.5 per cent, Thailand will still be trailing Vietnam and Philippines, whose economies are expanding at a higher rate of over 6 per cent, while the region’s largest economy Indonesia is projected to grow at 5 per cent this year.

Nophakhun@nationgroup.com

Meanwhile, one man is engaged in a battle behind bars that stems from the recent national vote.

On the evening of August 6, Jatupat Boonpattaraksa, also known as “Phai Daodin”, a 25-year-old law student from Khon Kaen University, was arrested along with Suranaree University of Technology student Wasin Phrommanee, 20, while they were distributing leaflets campaigning against the draft constitution. They were charged with violating the Referendum Act.

The Phu Khiew Court in Chaiyaphum granted them bail, but Phai Daodin declined the offer, arguing that his arrest was unfair and that he had the right to campaign legally. Also, he said eligible voters had the right to be informed about the draft constitution that they were to vote on.

He said the documents he had distributed were neither fake versions or distortions of the draft’s content. Since August 8, the day after the referendum, Phai has been on hunger strike.

“He wants law enforcers to review their legal action against him. They should reconsider whether what they did to him was right. If our society allows things to continue like this, what will happen to our country?” said his father Wiboon.

On Monday, a weakened Phai lost consciousness, triggering calls for him to seek temporary release and fight his case in court.

However, the young activist seems determined to carry on.

The director of Phu Khiew Prison has declined to give permission for Phai to be sent to hospital until the prison doctor confirms medical attention is warranted. At present, Phai is being treated in the prison’s clinic.

Critics claim that denying Phai hospital treatment is a deliberate ploy to pressure him into seeking temporary release.

Recently, Human Rights Watch added its voice to local calls for his immediate release.

Others counter that the activist deserves punishment since he violated the law, but is himself responsible for “choosing” to be detained.

Behind the political bias that is dividing views on the case lies a simple fact: Phai is refusing to give in to what he views as unfair use of power. He views that it was unjust for opponents of the draft charter to be prevented from airing their views in the lead-up to the referendum.

In stark contrast, supporters of the draft were permitted to campaign freely through different media for a “yes” vote. No charges have been filed against these people.

Phai is not just battling against one action taken by the authorities. He is fighting for fairness and basic rights in general. When those principles are respected by authorities, it is not just him who will benefit. All citizens will benefit from the rights and liberties that are generally enjoyed in any civilised society.

Whether he ends up winning or losing, what this young activist is doing will be recorded as a significant step in modern Thai history.

attayuth@nationgroup.com

As the long weekend kicked off late on Thursday, seven provinces in the upper South were rocked by a wave of bombings and arson that targeted popular tourist destinations. Four people were killed and dozens injured.

When observers pointed out similarities and connections to separatist militant attacks in the deep South, authorities were quick to rule out any link and even quicker to say that the attacks could have been motivated by political resentment over the referendum result. A number of red-shirt leaders have since been detained in connection with bombings.

Officials have yet to offer concrete evidence to support their argument that insurgents are not to blame. Meanwhile, experts say the attacks bear hallmarks of the separatist Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN) – particularly in the use of twin bombings, a tactic often employed by the militants group. The size and type of explosive also matched the BRN‘s typical modus operandi, experts said.

Anders Engvall, an academic who has studied the Southern conflict for more than a decade, reported at the New Mandala website that there have been an average of five bomb attacks each day in the far South since the beginning of August.

If last week’s deadly assaults do indeed have connections with the insurgency, the government has a duty to inform the public accordingly. For our basic safety, we citizens have the right to know whether the BRN has now developed the capacity to carry out attacks outside the border provinces.

Meanwhile, as a military-led administration, the government seems to be under-performing in its specialism – security issues. Surely more could have been done to foresee and prevent the 50-plus bomb attacks that have occurred so far this month.

More importantly, Bangkok must call a halt to its knee-jerk blaming of red-shirts, which conveniently avoids the truth that they, as a military-dominated government, have failed in their handling of the far South issue.

Most of all, nobody – neither soldier nor politician – should be permitted to exploit deadly attacks on innocent people for political gain.

If it turns out the attacks had nothing to do with separatists, then the focus must switch to a review of the security apparatus and the military. If they have failed to fulfil their primary task of providing security, how can they be trusted to write a national strategy plan for the next 20 years or select senators who can vote for a prime minister for the next eight years?

chanwanpen92@gmail.com

As the long weekend kicked off late on Thursday, seven provinces in the upper South were rocked by a wave of bombings and arson that targeted popular tourist destinations. Four people were killed and dozens injured.

When observers pointed out similarities and connections to separatist militant attacks in the deep South, authorities were quick to rule out any link and even quicker to say that the attacks could have been motivated by political resentment over the referendum result. A number of red-shirt leaders have since been detained in connection with bombings.

Officials have yet to offer concrete evidence to support their argument that insurgents are not to blame. Meanwhile, experts say the attacks bear hallmarks of the separatist Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN) – particularly in the use of twin bombings, a tactic often employed by the militants group. The size and type of explosive also matched the BRN‘s typical modus operandi, experts said.

Anders Engvall, an academic who has studied the Southern conflict for more than a decade, reported at the New Mandala website that there have been an average of five bomb attacks each day in the far South since the beginning of August.

If last week’s deadly assaults do indeed have connections with the insurgency, the government has a duty to inform the public accordingly. For our basic safety, we citizens have the right to know whether the BRN has now developed the capacity to carry out attacks outside the border provinces.

Meanwhile, as a military-led administration, the government seems to be under-performing in its specialism – security issues. Surely more could have been done to foresee and prevent the 50-plus bomb attacks that have occurred so far this month.

More importantly, Bangkok must call a halt to its knee-jerk blaming of red-shirts, which conveniently avoids the truth that they, as a military-dominated government, have failed in their handling of the far South issue.

Most of all, nobody – neither soldier nor politician – should be permitted to exploit deadly attacks on innocent people for political gain.

If it turns out the attacks had nothing to do with separatists, then the focus must switch to a review of the security apparatus and the military. If they have failed to fulfil their primary task of providing security, how can they be trusted to write a national strategy plan for the next 20 years or select senators who can vote for a prime minister for the next eight years?

chanwanpen92@gmail.com

In 2007, the country was under the rule of a government set up by the coup-making Council of National Security (CNS). However, unlike their predecessor almost a decade ago, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) is ruling with a tighter grip, in the name of maintaining social order.

According to the political road map set by the powers-that-be, the NCPO will remain in power until the next general election, which is expected to take place late next year. That means the junta will have about a year and a half. The NCPO head and Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha is armed with absolute power under Article 44 of the post-coup interim charter.

Undeniably, the referendum also served as a test of the rulers’ popularity. People also seemed to vote as to whether they agreed with the rulers’ exercising of their power gained through the coup of May 2014.

In ruling the country, General Prayut, the NCPO and his government have invoked powers that encroach on the individual rights and freedoms of many people. Judging from the vote result, the majority seemed to agree with the rulers’ use of their powers.

Previously, critics said this government was ruling with the guns. But the referendum result indicated that the powers-that-be also have the backing of millions of voters. Although the referendum was held with restrictions on public debate, the result could not be changed.

However, people who voted in support of the draft constitution will have to accept the consequences of their decision. People who failed to turn out for voting also have to do the same thing. This also applies to people who voted “No”. Under democratic principles, they have to accept the decision of the majority, whether they like it or not.

What is astonishing is that many people went to cast their ballots without a complete understanding of the draft charter’s content and the additional question. They did not read the actual draft subject to the referendum. And they did not know what would happen if they voted to allow senators to choose prime minister. The additional question asked voters if they agreed to allow selected senators to vote with elected MPs in picking the next prime minister for five years after the new Parliament convenes for the first time.

Those who turned out to vote were supposed to know what choice they had and to have an understanding of what they would vote for or against. People in society need to learn to live with the decision they make. It goes without saying that the government must not abuse the majority “Yes” vote to both the referendum questions. The approval does not mean the majority of voters have allowed them to use their powers any way they like.

Although people now have no legal means to scrutinise the government before the new constitution is promulgated, in practice many people are ready to come out against any abuse of government power. If that is the case, the rulers may find out that it is not easy to keep the situation under control.

The next election is expected within next year. At that time people will vote to elect their new rulers. The mechanisms and measures in the new charter are going to be applied on the post-election government.

Let us wait and see whether the new power structure will function well or if there will be any serious problems. But one thing is certain: We will have to live with the consequences of our decision for a long time, whether they are positive or negative.

attayuth@nationgroup.com