NCPO has already invalidated contract 

The author of this piece is misdirecting his anger and frustration.
The problem is that when an elite is running the country as the military is now, they also have responsibilities of “noblesse oblige”.  This means that, as someone who has been granted the status of a noble leader, you have to use your authority not just for the betterment of yourself and your cronies, but for those whom you govern. It means you don’t do things like try and take away free healthcare, or put dirty coal-fired plants in their backyards that they don’t want, or tax them heavily so you can buy toy submarines for the world’s largest bathtub. This is where the anger should be focused. The military actually got it right for these reconciliation meetings, but they simply don’t have the moral authority to ask this of the people. And when hypocrites ask you to do something, you get blow-back. It’s pretty rich to ask others to do things you won’t.
Any political system can work if the people participating in it consider others rather than just themselves. And any system will eventually fail if the stakeholders don’t. It is really that simple. So “good job” to the military for reminding everyone what democracy is supposed to be about, but it is actually counterproductive when said by those who enjoy even less respect than the police.
Monomial
The point of this article’s author is well taken, as expressed in its title: “A ‘social contract’ we’re forced to sign”. 
Of the three thinkers that are most famously connected with Social Contract theory, I prefer Locke over the other two because he advocated much more liberty for individuals (providing that they respect the equal liberty of others, of course). Hobbes and Rousseau leave too many loopholes for strong authoritarian governments, right or left, to hijack the “contract”. 
Hobbes feared too much liberty, and he advocated a strong dictatorship to keep the peace. He argued that it was in people’s self-interest to voluntarily give up huge areas of their freedom and, by contract, give them to the government. 
Rousseau gave a collectivist justification for all individuals to be forced to give in to the “General Will” of unrestricted majority rule.  (James Madison later argued against such “tyranny of the majority” and, following Locke, advocated strict limitations on any government powers.) In modern history, many authoritarians and dictators have claimed that they represent the General Will – and many of them have even convinced enough people to vote them into power – and it often goes badly.
Zenwind
ThaiVisa