Parliament Split Over Charter Changes

[webfact]

CHARTER REVIEW

Parliament split over charter changes

By The Nation

Published on September 17, 2009

Parliament split over charter changes

Yesterday's parliamentary debate on changes to the Constitution revealed a severe split within Parliament and the coalition government on these issues.

The opposition Pheu Thai Party and minor parties in the government coalition joined a number of senators in backing proposed changes to the charter, while the ruling Democrat Party and other members of the Upper House opposed amendments.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva told the gathering he sought the debate yesterday to hear views from MPs and senators about proposals by the parliamentary committee on reconciliation for political reform involving changes to the Constitution.

The joint sitting of the National Assembly was called by the Parliament president at the PM's suggestion, as per Article 179 of the Constitution, but no resolution had to be passed.

Senator Direk Tuengfang, chairman of the parliamentary committee, said the panel found certain clauses in the charter were unfair and it proposed six changes. He warned that charter changes were needed to ensure reconciliation and avoid "unprecedented severe problems".

MPs from Pheu Thai and other coalition parties voiced their support for changes, while Democrat MPs disagreed, arguing that the root cause of political problems did not rest with the Constitution.

The current Constitution was drafted in 2007 after the military staged a coup and ousted the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, who was accused by the coup-makers of abuse of power and the previous charter, written in of 1997.

But many politicians say clauses about political party dissolution are unfair, as an entire party is disbanded and all party executives stripped of their electoral rights for electoral law violations committed or condoned by one or a few party executives.

Chaiya Phromma, a Pheu Thai MP from Nong Bua Lamphoo, blamed the current charter for the ongoing division in Thai society. He said changes to the Constitution were needed urgently to prevent a "war of the people".

Somkiat Soralam, a Puea Pandin MP, said many clauses in the current charter were spurred by distrust of politicians and fear that fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra might return to power.

Somkiat recently filed a motion with a group of MPs and senators, seeking to change the charter. But the motion became void earlier this week when many parliamentarians withdrew support and left the number of supporters below the required minimum of 125 parliamentarians.

The Puea Pandin MP said yesterday he would seek support from parliamentarians again to resubmit a similar motion for charter changes.

Senator Rosana Tositrakul said fellow parliamentarians who backed the six proposed changes were trying to protect their interests. She said there were also flawed clauses involving rights and liberties of citizens but the government and politicians didn't seem to care about them.

In response to the argument that the charter needed to be amended because it was written after a coup, she said there are more than 500 laws still in effect that were written after previous coups.

Nipon Visityuthasat, a Democrat MP, said the current charter took many principles from the 1997 charter, which he said was "a good constitution". But many of the changes put forward by the Direk panel needed further discussion and views from the public.

Suchart Lainam-ngoen, a Pheu Thai MP from Lop Buri, praised the Direk panel for their "brave" proposals. He called for changes to the 2007 charter or for the 1997 model, which was repealed after the coup, to be reinstated.

Chavalit Vichayasut, another Pheu Thai MP, claimed there were attempts to delay changes to the constitution. He urged the government, particularly the Democrat Party, to support charter changes for the sake of reconciliation.

-- The Nation 2009/09/17

[Plus]

Asia Foundation survey is out:

"When asked how the Constitution should be amended, 67% say

amendment should be drafted through a participatory process that

involves ordinary citizens; 10% say amendment should be done by

Parliament alone, and 16% thought changes should be drafted by a

committee of experts. Regardless of method of amendment, an

overwhelming majority (84%) believes that a new or revised constitution

should be ratified through a referendum.

http://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/T...portenglish.pdf

There's a lot to read there, the next interesting thing I saw was

" A majority

(62%) favor retaining Article 237 of the 2007 Constitution (which allows

the banning of politicians and dissolution of parties) in a revised

Constitution, and only one in five (21%) think politicians convicted of

crimes should be pardoned. Likewise, 57% would support revoking the

pardons granted the military coup-makers in the 2007 constitution,

nevertheless 62% see the army as an important institution, and 69%

say the army is the right size."

I hope Democrats bring these results to the parliament and show them during the debate. It's a great opportunity to remind MPs what the people of this country actually want.

[Nilrem]

Yes, politicians are split but there is some good argumentation going on, though I don't think they going deep enough to resolve the basic cleavages among the Thai people. However, this joint session of the House and the Senate are searching – and seeking views of the public.

While not Thai or a citizen of Thailand, I do have a public view and some practical experience in constitutional reformation. I see fundamental flaws both in the construction and application of the existing Constitution. I will give an example of each to hopefully start a constructive discussion.

The Thai political system, in developing democracy, is bicameral (House and Senate) modeled on the British, but it tends towards being unicameral and actually confuses the two in legislation, joint sessions notwithstanding. The basic idea of bicameralism is checks and balances, but the Thai system doesn't check much and is completely out of balance. For instance, take the selection of near half the Senators in the revision of 2007, while electing the other half: one from each province and Bangkok. The selection of Senators is wrong in principle, going against democracy and upsetting any sense of balance between House and Senate. Also, a basic premise and prerequisite to be a Senator is having an academic degree. In recognizing that a basic problem is the rural/city divide, how many people with degrees live in a village or minimally understand rural values and problems?

Also relative is the application of the "People's Constitution" of 1997 and 2007 revision. They mandate that the government allow citizen's public participation in any projects affecting their community as well as partaking in the management of natural resources. The federal government tends to ignore this: outstanding is the proposed potash development near Udon Thani. So far a stalemate; but the momentum is in the corporate/government alliance against the Green Shirts, led by elderly woman from affected villages.

[Gary A]

It doesn't make any difference what the constitution says. After the next coup, they will throw it out anyways. Coup makers should be tried for treason and if guilty, shot or hanged.

[Nilrem]

It doesn't make any difference what the constitution says. After the next coup, they will throw it out anyways. Coup makers should be tried for treason and if guilty, shot or hanged.

Yes, for someone sceptical and cynical with an armchair reactionary view that'd appear so for sure. So, given that every time in the past a coup has occurred the Constitution has been thrown out, how can that experience be prevented in the future? Threats of coupmakers being tried for treason, shooting and hanging them has never worked well, even if guilty. Besides its counterproductive. I simply suggest that a good constitution, well applied, with checks and balances that develops democracy is the antidote. Still, there is no guarantee that a coup won't occur or the constitution ignored even with the best checks, great balance, etc.

[Plus]

The main problem with this current parliament debate is that those who seek amendments do not want people to have a say in them, and they want amendments for articles that people either disagree or don't care, as a survey shows.

That proves the Democrats are correct - the amendments are self-serving and will do nothing to solve political problems.

Ideally they should get some list of changes and take it to a referendum, with people ticking them point by point. Those changes that don't pass get thrown out.

[hammered]

Asia Foundation survey is out:

"When asked how the Constitution should be amended, 67% say

amendment should be drafted through a participatory process that

involves ordinary citizens; 10% say amendment should be done by

Parliament alone, and 16% thought changes should be drafted by a

committee of experts. Regardless of method of amendment, an

overwhelming majority (84%) believes that a new or revised constitution

should be ratified through a referendum.

http://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/T...portenglish.pdf

There's a lot to read there, the next interesting thing I saw was

" A majority

(62%) favor retaining Article 237 of the 2007 Constitution (which allows

the banning of politicians and dissolution of parties) in a revised

Constitution, and only one in five (21%) think politicians convicted of

crimes should be pardoned. Likewise, 57% would support revoking the

pardons granted the military coup-makers in the 2007 constitution,

nevertheless 62% see the army as an important institution, and 69%

say the army is the right size."

I hope Democrats bring these results to the parliament and show them during the debate. It's a great opportunity to remind MPs what the people of this country actually want.

Thanks for posting this. It is very interesting and contains some maybe surprising findings and imho should be required reading for anyone analysing current Thai politics.

I found the desire for elected governors interesting as well as the courts being seen as having the most integrity and and also being the least poltically bias instituions. Unsurprisingly the police ranked lowest on these two items with 84% considering the police poltically bias!

[Plus]

Another interesting point is that people want to vote where they live rather than where they have their house registration. Support for this is even higher among those who stay in one place and then see hordes of people whose faces they don't know come back from the capital and vote on the local issues.

Also people say that vote buying influences voters, but also that the voters don't feel obliged upon receiving the money. They also say that opinion of local influential people doesn't matter much, but also that they value "availability and accessibility" of the candidate far more than his achievements.

That means the prospective MP needs to "connect" to the public first and foremost.

Just like in marketing talk - when the brand value is created in customer's mind, everything works for it, you can't sway his opinion easily, no matter how influential you are or how much money you offer. Getting into peoples hearts - that's what brings votes.

[nakachalet]

Also relative is the application of the "People's Constitution" of 1997 and 2007 revision. They mandate that the government allow citizen's public participation in any projects affecting their community as well as partaking in the management of natural resources. The federal government tends to ignore this: outstanding is t[b]he proposed potash development near Udon Thani[/b]. So far a stalemate; but the momentum is in the corporate/government alliance against the Green Shirts, led by elderly woman from affected villages.

-----------

would you pls elaborate on this a little more....

can't seem to find it in the nation.... thx

Edited September 17, 2009 by nakachalet

[Thai at Heart]

Also relative is the application of the "People's Constitution" of 1997 and 2007 revision. They mandate that the government allow citizen's public participation in any projects affecting their community as well as partaking in the management of natural resources. The federal government tends to ignore this: outstanding is t[b]he proposed potash development near Udon Thani[/b]. So far a stalemate; but the momentum is in the corporate/government alliance against the Green Shirts, led by elderly woman from affected villages.

-----------

would you pls elaborate on this a little more....

can't seem to find it in the nation.... thx

This has been running for years. Massive potash find in Udon, local opposition, license problems etc

[nakachalet]

it is 13:30 bkk time--in the senate chamber

almost all the speaking senators proposed redrafting, or deleting of the 2007 constitution clause:

1-which punishes not only the lawbreaker individually but also his/her political associates and political party including its chair, if they were found to be part of the scheme--which these senators deem unfair....

2-which empowers judiciary branch to decide who is guilty and who is ultimately responsible and who is to be ousted from the senate--senators' argument was that they were elected by democratic voters and therefore the judiciary branch has no constitutional power to remove them arbitrarily and independently....

3-which appears to interfere with monarchy confirmation proceedings in that senators are confirmed by the monarchy confirmation proceedings and therefore to judiciary remove any senator independently and/or judiciary through the court of laws, is in and of itself unconstitutional and deformational....

4--which delimits the ability of those guilty senators and their parties to re-run during the following re-election processes--some senators are of the opinion that the local registered voters will always choose the best person to represent their areas, what does it matter to anyone else whom these voters choose to represent them, if the local voters deem mr. sanook is the best choice--even though he was found to be guilty of dishonesty during the past election--what does it matter to voters in other districts, whom this group of voters choose as their legal representation....

there were other arguments but at this moment, i could not seem to recall .... lol

[Nilrem]

Also relative is the application of the "People's Constitution" of 1997 and 2007 revision. They mandate that the government allow citizen's public participation in any projects affecting their community as well as partaking in the management of natural resources. The federal government tends to ignore this: outstanding is t[b]he proposed potash development near Udon Thani[/b]. So far a stalemate; but the momentum is in the corporate/government alliance against the Green Shirts, led by elderly woman from affected villages.

-----------

would you pls elaborate on this a little more....

can't seem to find it in the nation.... thx

This has been running for years. Massive potash find in Udon, local opposition, license problems etc

Yes, quite an amazing story actually. I'll outline the situation and stick to a few aspects relative to the topic here and then post a more detailed response on a separate topic in a day or two when I get time.

Billions of baht have been spent on this project over 20 years in the making. A lot of profit to be made producing 2 million tons of potash/year in the proposed 20 year life span of the mine. Also, a tremendous amount of pollution (water, air, land) covering 25 square kilometers just southeast of Udon Thani.

A key objection in the 1990s and early 2000s was that the project was in the hands of a foreign corporation, but that was overcome with Italian-Thai money buying out the Canadians to create a "100% Thai" company. Another key development happened in 2002 when Thaksin's government changed the law so the people no longer owned their property underground. The project is presently on a backburner with the global financial crisis. As i recall, there have been flareups in 2002, 2005, and 2007. More to come for sure.

Question: are the Green Shirts localized to Udon Thani province, specialized relative to the potash project and only coming out occasionally to protect their rights and hold their ground?

[webfact]

CHARTER REVIEW

Coalition sulks over Democrat stance on charter rewrite

By The Nation

Published on September 19, 2009

The Democrats appear to have stalled charter amendments by pushing for a lengthy rewriting process instead of honouring their promise for a speedy passage, coalition partners said yesterday on condition of anonymity.

"It is difficult for the coalition alliance to remain intact if the Democrats fail to keep their words," a coalition partner said.

The partner claimed that at a dinner meeting last month, Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban had pledged for a fast-track rewriting of two key provisions - on the framework for international agreements, and the switch from single-seat constituency to multi-seat.

The meeting took place at the home of faction leader Suwat Liptapanlop. Suthep reportedly promised support from the Democrats for amendments pushed by Bhum Jai Thai, Chart Thai Pattana and Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana parties.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and ranking Democrats have subsequently indicated a preference to form the Constitution Drafting Assembly to rewrite the charter. The three coalition parties want the rewriting done via House deliberation.

The CDA, if formed, might take a year or longer to complete the amendment process. The normal legislative process can be completed within a few months, according to estimates of the coalition partners.

Sensing the Democrats' fickle stand, the coalition partners have reportedly been lobbying Abhisit to agree to holding a referendum on six proposed amendments in lieu of forming the CDA.

The senatorial whips are expected on Wednesday to debate on the way to amend the charter based on the general debate on the matter by the House-Senate session, Deputy Senate Speaker Nikom Wairatpanit said.

Nikom speculated that the charter rewrite might be done in one of two ways - through the CDA, or through the Parliament. Either method will take nine to 12 months to complete, he said.

The parliamentary scrutiny of the amendments is likely to take longer than usual because of time needed to complete the referendum, he added.

He expected the amendments would likely be confined to the six issues recommended by the report of the reconciliation committee.

If it is deemed necessary to hold the referendum, the Election Commission is ready to organise the voting, EC member Somchai Jungprasert said.

The referendum would cost about Bt2 billion, he said.

In his closing speech at the end of the general debate on Thursday night, Abhisit said he expected whips from the coalition, the opposition and the Senate to reach a conclusion on the rewriting process within a week.

He said he wanted the whips' report by the time he returned from his visit to New York.

The government was willing to go along with either of the two options for rewriting, he said, urging lawmakers to form a consensus on the matter.

He said he would support the option agreed by lawmakers.

Following the completion of amending the charter, the government would be prepared to call a snap election if deemed necessary, he said.

-- The Nation 2009/09/19

[hammered]

Considering the people want to be involved involving them rather than just parlaimentarians would seem to be the way ahead. However, that doesnt favour the political elite.

It is looking increasingly likely that Abhisit will call an election even if it returns the Dems to the opposition. PTP plus the whore/swinger parties will then be left to push for ammendments that will have one half of the country up in arms and wont involve the people, and will create the conditions for a coup. Then again maybe the thought of that will keep the coalition allies on board for a while yet.