Round And Round We Go, Amending The Constitution

[Lite Beer]

EDITORIAL

Round and round we go, amending the constitution

The Nation

Charter reform has become part of an inevitable cycle after each coup but people continue to try to avoid the law

"Charter reform" is one phrase that keeps haunting Thai politics. We heard about it on a daily basis in the wake of the 1992 uprising, then again after Thaksin Shinawatra was ousted as prime minister when coup-makers sought to replace the 1997 "People's Constitution" that they abolished. Now, the Pheu Thai Party and the red-shirt movement want to kick-start the long-held plan to remove the "coup-makers' charter". The circle keeps recycling with no end in sight.

Why is "charter reform" so important? Even those advocating drastic changes to the current charter cannot really explain how a new Constitution could make things better in Thai politics, or how military "opportunists" will be subdued forever. Thailand has had countless charters - good and bad ones - that shared the same destiny. They ended up being victims of bad politics, which never sought to foster strong points of our highest laws of the land.

As far as constitutions are concerned, we end up with only one thing: People always look for their loopholes and try to get around them, so that we can act against their unwritten intent. This was a main reason why the much-loved 1997 "People's Constitution" was as thick as a student textbook. It was written to prevent nit-picking or hair-splitting interpretations or exploitation that doomed its predecessors. As we all know, even the extreme precaution, designed to protect the 1997 charter from the smart malice of Thai politics, proved totally inadequate.

We can "reform" the Constitution all we want, but we will not get anywhere if we fail to reform ourselves. The fact that the "best" Constitution, the 1997 charter, did not survive only confirms that even the best doctrine is helpless if people choose to ignore it or only have selective faith in its principles. Without reforming ourselves, we will have to continue doing what we always did in order to feel a little better. We will continue to blame "military opportunists" when the next charter is "torn apart" once again.

Clean politics is the best defence against coups. If this sounds like a "military apologist's statement", it's also the truth. Corruption and abuse of power can weaken democracy as well as ambitious, dictatorial military strongmen can. Politicians can't use a charter as a shield; they must shield a charter by behaving themselves. No constitution can protect a government. Only honesty can.

Will Thai politicians be willing to break out of the cycle of charter reform, bad government, coup, uprising and charter reform again? That's a big ask. Some academics have even tried to defend corrupt politics as a normal part of growing up democratically. Thais have been told to be "patient" with political crooks and see how democracy will eventually deal with them. Those academics miss the point. Thailand's problem is not an "impatient" populace wanting a short cut to a squeaky clean political system. The country's problem is politicians' inability to restrain themselves from giving "military opportunists" the very pretexts they need to stage a coup every one or two years.

Who were the last politicians in power kicked out of office and punished through legitimate means because of corruption? We can't remember because that never happened. The best we could hope for is corrupt politicians being punished AFTER they were no longer in office. Some ministers embroiled in graft scandals may have been forced to resign, but how many were legally punished? In most cases, they went scot-free thanks to Cabinet reshuffles, which usually replaced crooks with their equals.

Maybe we don't deserve a great charter after all. If the 1997 Constitution could talk, it would blame corruption and abuse of power as much as the 2006 coup for its demise. It would also tell the current "charter reform" advocates that constitutional power lies not in what's written, but in citizens' true faith in the principles that make up the highest law.

-- The Nation 2011-12-25

[Bakseedaa]

wish the Nation would tell us something we do not already know....

[Alvarez]

OMG!!!!!

[geriatrickid]

Who were the last politicians in power kicked out of office and punished through legitimate means because of corruption? We can't remember because that never happened

Really? The government of Mr. Abhisit failed to win a mandate and was booted from office by the electorate in large part because the electorate saw it as corrupt, both from an ethical and from a practical perspective. Had Mr. Abhisit not been plagued by corruption scandals and of course his links to the illegal military coup, he most likely would have won an election.

I like this entry from wikipedia;

Abhisit censored thousands of Web sites, shut down hundreds of radio stations, and arrested and silenced many media figures and opposition and labor leaders. Human Rights watch called Abhisit "the most prolific censor in recent Thai history" and Freedom House downgraded Thailand's rating of media freedom to "not free." Abhisit also advocated for stronger anti-corruption measures, although several members of his Cabinet resigned due to corruption scandals and parts of his economic stimulus packages were criticized for instances of alleged corruption.

The attempt to demonize the Thaksin administration as the most corrupt in recent history was debunked in the Bangkok Pundit article of March 6, 2011.

If the Nation is truly intent on helping to stop corruption then it should come right out and provide a strategy instead of using the subject to mount another attack on the government. The reality is that as long as power in this country is centralized in the hands of the military and its allies, there will always be corruption. Break the syndicate and you will significantly reduce corruption. The Nation ihowever will not bite the hand that feeds it. As long as governments in power, whether PTP or Democrat, have to buy off peace with "special" benefits and budget largess, there will neve be enough money left over for the people that are paying the bills.

[tlansford]

Who were the last politicians in power kicked out of office and punished through legitimate means because of corruption? We can't remember because that never happened

Really? The government of Mr. Abhisit failed to win a mandate and was booted from office by the electorate in large part because the electorate saw it as corrupt, both from an ethical and from a practical perspective. Had Mr. Abhisit not been plagued by corruption scandals and of course his links to the illegal military coup, he most likely would have won an election.

I like this entry from wikipedia;

Abhisit censored thousands of Web sites, shut down hundreds of radio stations, and arrested and silenced many media figures and opposition and labor leaders. Human Rights watch called Abhisit "the most prolific censor in recent Thai history" and Freedom House downgraded Thailand's rating of media freedom to "not free." Abhisit also advocated for stronger anti-corruption measures, although several members of his Cabinet resigned due to corruption scandals and parts of his economic stimulus packages were criticized for instances of alleged corruption.

The attempt to demonize the Thaksin administration as the most corrupt in recent history was debunked in the Bangkok Pundit article of March 6, 2011.

If the Nation is truly intent on helping to stop corruption then it should come right out and provide a strategy instead of using the subject to mount another attack on the government. The reality is that as long as power in this country is centralized in the hands of the military and its allies, there will always be corruption. Break the syndicate and you will significantly reduce corruption. The Nation ihowever will not bite the hand that feeds it. As long as governments in power, whether PTP or Democrat, have to buy off peace with "special" benefits and budget largess, there will neve be enough money left over for the people that are paying the bills.

July 3rd wasn't that long ago... how quickly they forget.

As for the rest, it could have been written by any one of several colleagues here, given the argument for not addressing the charter is "no matter which charter we have, people will find a way around it, so don't change it now", and "if only politicians were not so corrupt, we wouldn't need military coups"...

It is not easy for any country / constitution to deal with abuse of power, but as long a military coup is the short-cut to "fixing" bad government, the democratic / political process to deal with bad politics will never stand a chance.

[pimay11]

"As long as governments in power, whether PTP or Democrat, have to buy off peace with "special" benefits and budget largess, there will neve be enough money left over for the people that are paying the bills".

That is a fact. The navy needs six used submarines like Thailand needs another flood. The 7.7 billion baht (USD 246 million) should be used in the education sector instead of buying toys for the boys..

Edited December 25, 2011 by pimay11

[whybother]

Who were the last politicians in power kicked out of office and punished through legitimate means because of corruption? We can't remember because that never happened

Really? The government of Mr. Abhisit failed to win a mandate and was booted from office by the electorate in large part because the electorate saw it as corrupt, both from an ethical and from a practical perspective. Had Mr. Abhisit not been plagued by corruption scandals and of course his links to the illegal military coup, he most likely would have won an election.

<snip>

The Democrats weren't "kicked out of office" because of corruption. If that was the case, surely the people wouldn't have voted for the proxy party of a clearly corrupt politician. I'm not saying that the Democrats weren't corrupt, but that isn't why they were kicked out.

Besides that, I think "kicked out" means removed through a coup or some other non-electoral means. Also the rest of the sentence is the main point. The corrupt politicians are never punished.

[geriatrickid]

Who were the last politicians in power kicked out of office and punished through legitimate means because of corruption? We can't remember because that never happened

Really? The government of Mr. Abhisit failed to win a mandate and was booted from office by the electorate in large part because the electorate saw it as corrupt, both from an ethical and from a practical perspective. Had Mr. Abhisit not been plagued by corruption scandals and of course his links to the illegal military coup, he most likely would have won an election.

<snip>

The Democrats weren't "kicked out of office" because of corruption. If that was the case, surely the people wouldn't have voted for the proxy party of a clearly corrupt politician. I'm not saying that the Democrats weren't corrupt, but that isn't why they were kicked out.

Besides that, I think "kicked out" means removed through a coup or some other non-electoral means. Also the rest of the sentence is the main point. The corrupt politicians are never punished.

The Democrats were removed from office, through a general election that saw the Democrats lose a large number of seats. it was a crushing defeat, a rebuke to an administration that had all the advantages of a ruling party and the support of the military.You are the one using the term "kicked out", but I'll go along with the term since IMO it does fit. Governments are regularly kicked out of office. One saw it in the destruction of the Liberal party in Canada, and the kicking out of New Labour in the UK. Spain recently saw its incumbent socialists booted from office.

Why reference Thaksin? The man running for the Democrats was Abhisit and he couldn't keep his house clean. He wrapped himself in the white robe of claiming that he would stop corruption and yet his ministers were plagued with allegations and scandal. Mr. Abhisit had every opportunity to pursue a crackdown on corruption and he needn't have obsessed on Mr. Thaksin. All he had to do was to sack a minister or to bring charges against one to set an example. Because he would not, he was complicit and the electorate saw that. He chose to back his military master's constitution and he chose to go along when the military forbade any negative discussion of the draft constitution. All he had to do was to stand up and take an ethical stand, a stand on principle that said, I support the revised constitution, but I object to the censorship and the refusal to allow a full discussion. Mr. Abhisit was complicit in the imposition of the revised draft that was concocted by the appointees of the military dictatorship.

[whybother]

Who were the last politicians in power kicked out of office and punished through legitimate means because of corruption? We can't remember because that never happened

Really? The government of Mr. Abhisit failed to win a mandate and was booted from office by the electorate in large part because the electorate saw it as corrupt, both from an ethical and from a practical perspective. Had Mr. Abhisit not been plagued by corruption scandals and of course his links to the illegal military coup, he most likely would have won an election.

<snip>

The Democrats weren't "kicked out of office" because of corruption. If that was the case, surely the people wouldn't have voted for the proxy party of a clearly corrupt politician. I'm not saying that the Democrats weren't corrupt, but that isn't why they were kicked out.

Besides that, I think "kicked out" means removed through a coup or some other non-electoral means. Also the rest of the sentence is the main point. The corrupt politicians are never punished.

The Democrats were removed from office, through a general election that saw the Democrats lose a large number of seats. it was a crushing defeat, a rebuke to an administration that had all the advantages of a ruling party and the support of the military.You are the one using the term "kicked out", but I'll go along with the term since IMO it does fit. Governments are regularly kicked out of office. One saw it in the destruction of the Liberal party in Canada, and the kicking out of New Labour in the UK. Spain recently saw its incumbent socialists booted from office.

Why reference Thaksin? The man running for the Democrats was Abhisit and he couldn't keep his house clean. He wrapped himself in the white robe of claiming that he would stop corruption and yet his ministers were plagued with allegations and scandal. Mr. Abhisit had every opportunity to pursue a crackdown on corruption and he needn't have obsessed on Mr. Thaksin. All he had to do was to sack a minister or to bring charges against one to set an example. Because he would not, he was complicit and the electorate saw that. He chose to back his military master's constitution and he chose to go along when the military forbade any negative discussion of the draft constitution. All he had to do was to stand up and take an ethical stand, a stand on principle that said, I support the revised constitution, but I object to the censorship and the refusal to allow a full discussion. Mr. Abhisit was complicit in the imposition of the revised draft that was concocted by the appointees of the military dictatorship.

"You are the one using the term "kicked out" " Read the bold part in your post.

"it was a crushing defeat" ... they lost 14 seats. Not really "crushing". That's a bit like PTP's "landslide" win.

"Why reference Thaksin?" because you mentioned that a party was "booted out" because of corruption. Why would they kick a party out because of corruption and choose another whose leader is so corrupt.

"Plagued" ... as opposed to every other government??? (including this one)

"He chose to back his military master's constitution" ... as did most of the country. It was a better decision to accept it, get on with elections and move forward, than to reject it and go through the whole process of drafting another one and delaying elections. So far, from all the discussions about this constitution, there are 2 things wrong with it. The amnesty given to the coup leaders (of course that's going to be there) and the non-elected senate. What else is wrong with it?

People object to it because of the way it was brought in. Get the f$ over it. It's there now. Change the parts that aren't right and MOVE ON.

Edited December 25, 2011 by whybother

[TAWP]

Interesting, an article against all politicians and the usual apologists only attack the democrats...very odd.

[ballpoint]

Interesting, an article against all politicians and the usual apologists only attack the democrats...very odd.

To be fair, there aren't a lot of politicians on the other side. Mainly a bunch of arsonists, murderers and thugs, or the puppets thereof.

[ozzieman05]

Who were the last politicians in power kicked out of office and punished through legitimate means because of corruption? We can't remember because that never happened Really? The government of Mr. Abhisit failed to win a mandate and was booted from office by the electorate in large part because the electorate saw it as corrupt, both from an ethical and from a practical perspective. Had Mr. Abhisit not been plagued by corruption scandals and of course his links to the illegal military coup, he most likely would have won an election. I like this entry from wikipedia; Abhisit censored thousands of Web sites, shut down hundreds of radio stations, and arrested and silenced many media figures and opposition and labor leaders. Human Rights watch called Abhisit "the most prolific censor in recent Thai history" and Freedom House downgraded Thailand's rating of media freedom to "not free." Abhisit also advocated for stronger anti-corruption measures, although several members of his Cabinet resigned due to corruption scandals and parts of his economic stimulus packages were criticized for instances of alleged corruption. The attempt to demonize the Thaksin administration as the most corrupt in recent history was debunked in the Bangkok Pundit article of March 6, 2011. If the Nation is truly intent on helping to stop corruption then it should come right out and provide a strategy instead of using the subject to mount another attack on the government. The reality is that as long as power in this country is centralized in the hands of the military and its allies, there will always be corruption. Break the syndicate and you will significantly reduce corruption. The Nation ihowever will not bite the hand that feeds it. As long as governments in power, whether PTP or Democrat, have to buy off peace with "special" benefits and budget largess, there will neve be enough money left over for the people that are paying the bills.

I though the democrats lost the election when the new government promised a pack of lies which they never intended to keep, and knowing that so many uneducated Thais would jump at the chance to be rich voted for them

Thais do not realise that for some one to be rich others must be poor