The Exploration of Thailand’s Referendum of 2016: A Comparison of Case Studies of Students’ Behavior and Decision-Making from Faculty of Social Sciences and Faculty of Education within Mahamakut Buddhist University, Thailand

Abstract

This research was an investigation of the behavior and decision-making of student who involved in Thailand’s Referendum of 2016 and participated in this research’s activities for gathering information of the political participation of students within the Mahamakut Buddhist University. The aims of this research were to 1) study the behavior and decisionmaking of the students involved in Thailand’s referendum of 2016, and 2) study the factors affecting the students' decisions related to Thailand’s referendum of 2016. Based on group discussion tools of the four sampling groups of students, Faculty of Social Science and Faculty of Education, these four groups can be divided into 2 groups (10 persons for who participated in this Referendum and 10 persons for who did not participate in this Referendum), with the total number was 20 persons. The research findings indicated that the behavior and decision of both faculties’ students made their own decision differently. Students from Faculty of Social Science used their own political interests by using the political information through press media and social media. The study of draft constitutional considerations that also affect the decision of students who did not go to take part the referendum. While political interests, political information through social media and knowing the constitutional content affects the students’ interests especially in the Faculty of Social Sciences to take part the referendum participation. For the sampling students from the Faculty of Education, their decision has been influenced by accessing the media after the political turmoil and these led to the students’ bias and their tiredness of political issues, these decisions also based on their own information. While a group of students from the Faculty of Education went to the referendum as a result of the influence of the dominant parents. However, the power of the parents comes from the good hope that if they do not go to the referendum will result in legal consequences for students lose political rights. In fact, there are no legal barriers to the election. In addition, the living environment and the differences between the study groups did not have any significant impact on student behavior and decision-making. Similarly, the public relations campaign, which emphasized public relations, emphasized the referendum only, could not much affect the student's decision.