What Thais Says About The Draft 2007 Constitution That Has Now Been Approved

On moving forward

The draft charter contains 309 articles. Do I like all of them? There are over 30 articles that I don't like. But I will vote ‘yes' in the Aug 19 referendum, because there's no constitution of which people like all articles. We have to see the big picture, and see how Thailand will move forward.

Jirmsak Pinthong, charter drafter

Problems that are not being discussed now will erupt after the promulgation of the draft constitution. So the draft 2007 charter will not solve the problems that happened before 1997, but it will make Thai politics prone to such problems.

Vorachet Phakeerat, Faculty of Law, Thammasat University

We accept that this draft charter is not the best, not perfect. But we hold it as a pre-requisite for the smooth restoration of people's power.

Charan Pakdeethanakul, charter drafter

We need to start with trying to look for political legitimacy which is acceptable to all sides. I don't believe that politics will be calmed down, if the draft gets approved, because there will be millions of people coming out to vote in the referendum and not coming out, who think the draft is not legitimate. You can't have a smooth politics as long as millions of people think that the government is not legitimate, the parliament is not legitimate, the constitution court is not legitimate, this and that are all illegitimate. Impossible.

Nidhi Eawsriwong, Midnight University

The acceptance of the draft 2007 constitution is instrumental in making a move forward. If it is rejected, power will still be in the hands of the current government and the Council for National Security. The fight between the old and new power cliques will be prolonged. That's enough for the economic and social damage that has been done. I want the country to move on. That's why the Democrat Party accepts the draft charter.

Abhisit Vejjajiva, Democrat Party Leader

Some people say that rejection will lead to bloodshed. Bloodshed will happen only when bullets are fired. As long as the powers-that-be don't pull the trigger, there will be no bloodshed. To reject is to disagree with its origin and content. So it is the CNS that will take a task of bringing up a better constitution for promulgation.

Vorachet Phakeerat, Faculty of Law, Thammasat University

The [former] opposition parties agree to accept the draft not out of a forced decision. At least, it exposes what the draft looks like. It is acceptance with the condition of improvement of certain articles. The drafters should be lauded for their intention to look back at the past 10 years, searching for leakages so that they can fix them. I think they have done a good job, better that what would have been done by political parties, as politicians might say that it wasn't worth dealing with some leakages. But this is done by people with no direct political affiliation. The drafters had so many issues to debate, like exposing the problems for the public to see. Whether the problems can be solved or not is a different matter, and the fixing may prove ineffective over time. But it shows how these problems are inter-connected.

Veerasak Kowsurat, Chart Thai Party

In order to get rid of the Thaksin Regime, we bolted the door shut, making it so difficult for these people to access state power. I don't think this will lead to peace, to reconciliation. I think this will lead to a tense situation like what we experienced during Oct 14, 1976 to 1992. So this is bigger than the issue of the Thaksin regime; this is an issue of two groups of people struggling to share the state's power. (capitalists with connection to the globalization and the poor, marginalized people who are Thai Rak Thai's political base) The question is what is a political system that allows these people to share the state's power, without destroying or abusing others? This, I think, finds no answer in the draft 2007 charter.

Kasian Techaphira, Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University

We are likely to face a long period of doldrums in the semi-Democracy, with a new military regime. This is what we have to deal with after the referendum.

Prapas Pintoptang, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University

I believe that even after the general election when we have a new government, politics will still be unstable, and we will still face economic problems for a long time. How can politics be stable when the coalition parties will fight one another all the time? The prime minister will be weak, having no power to bargain or control his own party members, and will always be under constant threat from the appointed senators and the Internal Security Operations Command. The government will be destabilized, with different Cabinet line-ups and prime ministers. When things reach a dead end, the parliament will be dissolved for a new general election. The next parliament will never make it to the full term for sure. The country will be run with no direction. The new government will not stay long, a year or two.

Pichit Likitkijsomboon, Faculty of Economics, Thammasat University

On rights and freedoms

The draft boasts of the rights and freedoms of the people in Section 3. This section indeed is rhetorical, consisting of provisions on rights but also exceptions. That is, the draft guarantees the rights, but allows legislation to violate those rights; for example, the freedom of communication in Article 36 can be suppressed for the sake of security, which can be interpreted in any way, and public morals.

Supalak Ganjanakhundee, Nation newspaper

People will be entitled to rights from when they are in the womb until the end of their lives. People will have access to health services. Mothers will not be malnourished. Local child development centres will be greatly improved. People can keep checks on local bodies. Hospitals, children's playgrounds and libraries will be improved. People will have free education until they reach working age. This is the first time that workers have guaranteed safety at work, guaranteed pay, and no discrimination. These are all tangible.

Chuchai Suphawong, charter drafter

The drafters did not work from past experience. For example, public gatherings have been abused by the authorities numerous times, but the 2007 draft does not say anything different from the 1997 constitution which had many flaws. There have been many violations of people's rights but these are not addressed. The [provision on rights in this] draft is almost identical to the previous charter, down to the spacing.

Somchai Preechasilapakul, Faculty of Law, Chiang Mai University

The fundamental policy guideline is written in a way that tries to please all sides. For example, one line reads that the sufficiency economy must be promoted, while another line supports a liberal [market] economy; that is completely contradictory. I think this is written in the style of politicians. The drafters use the same tactics; it sounds good, but it is impractical. I insist that this is not an ‘edible' constitution, not beneficial for the underprivileged.

Jon Ungpakorn, Chair of NGO Coordinating Committee

The problems will still remain, as was the case with the 1997 constitution, regarding enforcement of the provisions. Politics after the referendum will be no different from now, I think; that is, a re-establishment of semi-democracy under a military regime. The referendum is part of the procedure to establish it formally. We're under martial law, and we have the junta's Announcement No. 6 that forbids farmers and workers to have political gatherings. So they can make arrests outside the 35 provinces that are under martial law. The internal security bill will perpetuate the military regime in the long run. This is what's going to happen.

Prapas Pintoptang, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University

On direct democracy and public participation

The selection of the Senate is a innovative. We are not returning to an appointment system. Senators cannot be civil servants, and will come from various occupations. So the selection process is an indirect election. This is our own idea to have neutral senators. I think this hybrid Senate will be balanced and progressive.

Nakarin Mektrairat, Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University

The draft 2007 charter is obviously an attempt to weaken the parliament by severing the link to the people. It is like trying to be free from the people, and establish the state's power in various forms to interfere in politics. The political space where the people can have their say in running the country has shrunk. The number of MPs is reduced, and the election system is changed back to the multiple MP constituencies like before, which is hectic.

Kanin Boonsuwan, 1997 charter drafter

The selection panels for the independent bodies will have seats for MPs and senators in place of political parties. The three courts will also have seats due to their dignity and trustworthiness. Therefore, the link to the people will be there, unlike what critics have said.

Paiboon Varahapaitoon, charter drafter

The parliamentary system designed in the draft 2007 constitution is moving backward, and based on the assumption that a few people have a better judgment than the whole country. Senators still have to hold bachelor degrees. And judges will choose half of the Senate. The independent bodies will come from these people.

Jon Ungpakorn, Chair of NGO Coordinating Committee

Parliament will not be a sacred place exclusively for the privileged. People are also privileged, and can speak in parliament. The draft charter stipulates that parliamentary committees which propose bills must have at least one third of its members from the people who propose the law. It means the people can have seats in parliament like ministers addressing the parliament.

Jirmsak Pinthong, charter drafter

As for the selection of 74 senators, we wish to open the space for ordinary people to help vet the laws, otherwise the parliament will be full of politicians-cum-businessmen who spend a lot of money in the elections, while people with disabilities have no chance, and community leaders have no chance.

Chuchai Suphawong, charter drafter

The number [of people proposing a law] is not important. What important is how the people can publicize their views, to what extent the people can make their points through the media. If the people can talk about land reform through the media, collecting 50,000 signatures of farmers across the country will be no problem. But the drafters lack a comprehensive understanding of Thai society, do not understand the problems of the people.

Somchai Preechasilapakul, Faculty of Law, Chiang Mai University

The draft constitution provides for free medical care for the people, with no need to pay 30 baht. The FTA negotiations so far have been painful to us, because the government made deals and trade-offs with this and that country. Some get benefits, as in free trade some will gain and some will lose. Farmers who produce onions, garlic, fruit, and milk go bankrupt, because of imports. So before the government negotiates with any country, it needs to ask for approval from the parliament. All information must be revealed to the public, and public hearings are required.

Jirmsak Pinthong, charter drafter

On transparency, checks and balances

I agree that the selection of senators is less democratic than an election, but we will have senators who are more independent and neutral than those from election. I'm not saying this is absolutely better, but this is an alternative for society to get people with diverse backgrounds.

Somkid Lertpaitoon, charter drafter

The draft charter gives unprecedented power to the judiciary. The preliminary draft for hearings was even worse. The draft allows the judiciary to propose bills, so for the first time since 1932 the judiciary encroaches into legislative power. The judiciary also has a hand in selecting senators, appointing the independent bodies, and impeaching political office holders. The judiciary has so much increased power, but there's no mechanism set up to scrutinize the judiciary. There is the possibility that the judiciary will make mistakes. Even if the mistakes are not the result of corruption, people will lose faith in the judiciary.

Rangsan Thanapornpan, Faculty of Economics, Thammasat University

If political office holders come from the bureaucracy or judiciary, we cannot expect a sincere and just scrutiny from these independent bodies. Despite the attempt to make these bodies independent, after all, the drafters seem to look down on the people. While writing provisions on how these bodies come about, they have also written a translational clause not to use those provisions in the initial stage. The current office holders will continue to stay in office, and continue to wield power.

Kanin Boonsuwan, 1997 charter drafter

This time MPs and senators must declare their assets to the public. Parents, children, and spouses of political office holders cannot become senators to prevent a ‘spouse' parliament. And those who wish to become senators must be free from politics, must old no political position, must not be members of political parties, must not have been MPs for 5 years, and must not be under the influence of political parties. The draft constitution attempts to elevate the Senate to a higher level of virtue.

Jirmsak Pinthong, charter drafter

It's a misunderstanding that to solve the problem of checks and balances it is necessary to have people who are free from politics. The question is whether being free from politics is also being free from the people. If so, those people have no legitimacy to do the job. The principle of democracy is that the government must come from and be accountable to the people.

Chaturon Chaisaeng, Thai Rak Thai

The drafters are quite confident that the independent bodies from the new selection systems will be really independent and neutral. Politicians, both the government and opposition, cannot interfere.

Jaran Pakdithanakul, charter drafter

The draft charter is not meant to weaken the government, but is meant to solve the problems of the 1997 Constitution that strengthened the executive branch to implement its policies, but failed in the checks and balances, because the independent bodies were not independent. The draft charter solves this very problem of a strong administration without checks and balances. If these independent bodies fail, we still can bring cases to courts. So the people have choices. Besides, the selection system that involves presidents of the courts is also an alternative in selecting individuals who are free from politics to fill the independent bodies.

Meechai Ruchupan, President of National Legislative Assembly

On prolonging power of the junta

Article 309 alone is enough to reject the draft 2007 charter. Article 309 not only grants amnesty for past wrongdoing. Reading carefully, you will realize that any illegal act committed under the interim 2006 Constitution will also get amnesty. If the CNS abuses its power or commits any violation of the interim 2006 Constitution, e.g. abuse of budget allocation or corruption, it will then get impunity by this Article.

Vorachet Phakeerat, Faculty of Law, Thammasat University

There is no provision in this draft charter that allows the CNS to share power. According to the draft, the Prime Minister must come from within (the members of Parliament). The Prime Minister or the CNS will not have any authority to nominate members of the Senate. The CNS will have to go after the draft is promulgated. There must be a general election at the soonest within this year. How do these provisions contradict democratic principles? Not at all.

Somkid Lertpaitoon, charter drafter

The CNS appointed the Constitution Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee then draws the Directive Principles of Fundamental State Policies and provides for many organizations and schemes.

The CNS has been prepared to join politics. The appointed senators will have the authority to demote important figures including the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the elected Members of Parliament. The Courts and the independent bodies will have a major say in the appointment of senators. This is where the power lies.

Chaturon Chaisaeng, Thai Rak Thai

If we talk about a balance of power, the executive used to have lots of power and then destroyed the legislature and judiciary. Now we balance their power, putting them on the same plane, not demolishing anything. We do not want to weaken the government. No one would want so. Of course, when we reduce the power a bit, we would feel that the balance of power has been changed. The drafters of the 2007 charter do not mean to tear down Thailand or bring back dictatorship. The drafters are just trying to find solutions for the country. We are trying to bring the country towards democracy, enhance the rights and freedoms of the people and increase people's political power. This is to create balance in politics.

Somkid Lertpaitoon, charter drafter

Many people claim that this draft charter does not lay down mechanisms to prolong the power of the powers-that-be, because there is no provision that sustains the power of the CNS, they said. The CNS will be over along with the Cabinet. But some provisions imply the contrary. The proposed Law Reform Committee, with authority to define and draft the law to set up the Law Reform Organisation, will be appointed by the Cabinet in power on the day this Constitution is enacted.

Vorachet Phakeerat, Faculty of Law, Thammasat University

On Democracy, Referendum Process and Constitution Drafting Process

This is not the first time (for a referendum on the whole constitution). In 1974, there was a referendum in Burma on Ne Win's Constitution. That referendum was done in a shorter time. The draft was not even completed yet.

Kiatichai Pongpanich, charter drafter

Any referendum on any law, especially a key instrument like a constitution, must be done only under democratic rule. There must be political parties and political freedoms. Every group must be able to do political campaign freely. The referendum must not be done under a dictatorship that suppresses all political freedoms and control all the mass media as going on now.

Somsak Jeamtheerasakun, Faculty of Arts, Thammasat University

Voting "No" to this draft charter would be to enhance the fight for democracy in terms of ideology and values. This is a crucial foundation for Thailand in its path towards international acceptance.

Vorachet Phakeerat, Faculty of Law, Thammasat University

The coup d'etat was done initially to prevent potential bloodshed, not to amend the Constitution. If the coup makers were more cold-blooded, if there was bloodshed, it would have been more legitimate. Any constitution or any form of government we believe in, including democracy, is meaningless if we have to die for it. We have experienced too much loss. Humanity must survive before we can have a good government. This means we need to save others' lives as well. If 19 September was a bloodbath, I would have not endorsed it.

Chaiyan Chaiyaporn, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University

The anti-coup groups have very few channels to launch their campaigns against the draft charter. The mainstream media, including television, radio and newspapers, is all controlled by the junta. No anti-coup and "Vote No" campaigns are shown to the public. Most people are not aware of the anti-charter campaign. The anti-coup groups are thus under siege politically. They have to resort to alternative media, like pamphlets, CDs and the internet, which have very limited access. In addition, they cannot launch their campaign in the provinces under martial law.

Pichit Likitkijsomboon, Faculty of Economics, Thammasat University

That the people reject the draft 2007 charter does not mean that they don't want a constitution. They do, but they do not want the draft 2007 charter resulting from a coup d'etat. Besides, the charter has many flaws. This referendum will determine the future of the country. It is an opportunity to tell the world that we want democracy not coups d'etat.

Chaturon Chaisaeng, Thai Rak Thai

The 2007 charter focuses on too narrow a subject, narrow in terms of the questions, and narrow in terms of drawing experience from too few people, namely the urban middle-class, in responding to those questions. It does not recognize the political experience of the lower-class, as it is quick to presume that the lower-class only sell their votes.

Nidhi Eawsriwong, Midnight University

-Translated by Ponglert Pongwanan