Stoppage Time, Giving A 12 Year-old A Charter Lesson.

[marshbags]

STOPPAGE TIME

Giving a 12-year-old a charter lesson

By Tulsathit Taptim

The Nation

Published on May 21, 2008

Son: What is the Constitution, Dad? How is it different from laws?

Father: Oh no, don't tell me they gave you that stupid homework again.

Son: What do you mean?

Father: I had to ask your grandpa the same questions. Well, anyway, here's my take: You can have only one hour a day for your Playstation. That's the law. The Constitution, meanwhile, says you have to go all the way to university and this can override anything including your playtime.

So, if your grades are very poor, thus hampering your chances for higher education, the one-hour Playstation time can be reduced to 30 minutes.

Son: I see. So, laws are like normal house rules when nothing is at stake, am I right? And the Constitution is like the highest rule, which is not flexible and controls the lesser rules.

Father: You got it.

Son: One more thing, what is the Constitution Court, Dad?

Father: It's the way of deciding whether I can revoke your Playstation right, if you get an F in English but A in maths. In such a case, perhaps we need a neutral party consisting of your mom, your sister, and your aunties to rule whether I am doing the right thing or should cut you a break.

Son: Thanks, dad. Now, my teacher is talking about Thailand's 1997 Constitution, Thaksin and the coup. It's very confusing.

Father: Well, the 1997 Constitution was a very good one. You know, the kind of highest house rule that will take you through university and give you a good life. Thaksin violated a few key principles in the Constitution but the Constitution Court ruled that he did not do anything wrong.

A lot of people were upset about that. Then when Thaksin did some more bad things, they said it was a result of him being let off the hook the first time. In the end the military had to stage a coup, literally forcing him to leave office at gunpoint.

Son: The teacher said the military had to revoke the Constitution in the process. Why, Dad?

Father: Because the 1997 Constitution, apart from prohibiting Thaksin from doing what he had done, also prohibited using military force to put him away. In order to make the coup "acceptable", they had to cancel the Constitution first.

Son: So, to defend certain principles of the Constitution, they had to destroy the whole Constitution?

Father: Yes, kind of.

Son: Shouldn't they have listened to the Constitution Court?

Father: Perhaps they should have. But the situation was as if your mom, sister and aunties decided to let you go on with Playstation for one hour everyday although you got F in every subject in school.

Son: I see. Now, what's the deal with the Constitution written after the coup? Why does the Samak government want to change it?

Father: The government says it's a Constitution designed to prevent Thaksin and his people from returning to power, therefore the charter is unfair and illegitimate.

Son: Did Samak really say the 1997 Constitution was better and should be restored?

Father: Yes, he did.

Son: But I don't get it, dad. Why did they want to revive a Constitution that Thaksin was accused of violating?

Father: That's not the best part. Have you heard of the Assets Examination Committee? It was set up after the coup to investigate how Thaksin violated the 1997 Constitution. Now the Constitution Court is being asked to say if the AEC is illegal. At the same time, those trying to write a new Constitution also plan to include a clause that outlaws the AEC.

Son: Wow. Sounds like fun. So, the Constitution Court, which set Thaksin free in 2001, can help him again this time. But what if Thaksin comes back to power and violates whatever is the new Constitution again? Can the Constitution Court help him again then? Seems like we are going in circles here.

Father: Good questions, son. We are damned because almost certainly Thaksin "will have" violated the future Constitution if the key principles of the 1997 charter are kept in place. We will go back to debating whether past crimes like hiding shares and operating businesses while running the government should be punished.

Regarding the Constitution Court, it will depend on who are the judges when a ruling is needed.

Son: Why do we need a Constitution, dad? Every one of them has caused and will cause us problems.

Father: You may be right. You see, having a very good Constitution may doom us just like the 1997 one did. It comes down to choosing between trying to make bad people obey good rules, thus risking a disaster, and living with the bad people without any rules.

Son: Cool dad. That sounds like lifting my Playstation limit and forgetting all about university because I'm too stupid to go that far anyway.

The Nation

Unquote.

Simple init, but then again,... when considering the motives of the interested parties / individuals who want the changes for unconstitutional incentives and self interests.

marshbags

Edited May 21, 2008 by marshbags