Thai Charter Reform: More Tightropes To Walk

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME

Charter reform: More tightropes to walk

Tulsathit Taptim

The government's first balancing act on constitutional amendment has been completed.

BANGKOK: -- It was not pretty, but somehow the administration has managed to walk from one end of a tightrope to the other. Reward is months of breathing space and the passing of the buck to a charter drafting assembly that will comprise directly and indirectly elected representatives.

That the government bill on the setting up of the drafting assembly has come about without fanfare should be a reprieve for Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. She has tried to distance herself - or her brother Thaksin, to be more exact - from charter amendment, so the lukewarm media attention to the government bill at the moment must be good news. Like they say, though, there's always calm before a storm, and here are key points that this week's development (or non-event, if you will) tell us:

1. The ruling camp will likely dominate the drafting assembly. Don't believe the talk about "independence". Political parties will be behind most candidates vying for seats in the assembly. The Election Commission, most likely to be tasked with holding the drafters' election, may design some kind of deterrent, but that could be next to no avail. The stakes are too big to let 99 people you don't know write the new rules for the game you play. The government bill calls for one drafter to represent each province, or 77 in total, while another 22 will be elected by Parliament. So, how many pro-government drafters will be among the 77? If we take the last general election's results as an indication, the answer could be well over half. Government influence will also more or less dictate who will be the 22 indirectly elected drafters.

2. New political turbulence is due around the end of the year. The drafting assembly should start functioning around the middle of the year. It should be given a maximum 180 days to write a new constitution. Considering that "nothing else" is there to be changed about this charter except its protection of legal consequences of the 2006 coup, the drafters will have no choice but to zoom in on this highly explosive matter.

In other words, the assembly will have to amend (or erase) Article 309 of the existing Constitution. What is related to that article? Thaksin Shinawatra's conviction in the Ratchadapisek land case, as well as the seizure of his massive assets. You may argue that coup consequences also involved parties' dissolution and the five-year bans on a lot of politicians, but they are irrelevant now. The last of the banned politicians will be freed next year (whether we have a new constitution or not), and life has been going on for the "dissolved" parties.

3. A public referendum is a must. As the existing charter, whose military blessing is decried by critics, came through a referendum, the new one has to do the same so it can earn full legitimacy. Campaigns for and against the draft of the new charter ahead of the referendum will raise the political temperature by several degrees. The current Constitution passed a referendum somewhat narrowly, giving critics strong ammunition to attack it with. Therefore, the new charter draft must win public approval by a considerable margin to prove its worthiness. Having said this, while a resounding "No" vote is unlikely, it's not entirely impossible, particularly if the drafting assembly comes up with a draft that pleases nobody. If the public reject the draft of the new charter in a referendum, expected around February next year, the whole process will end there or a new drafting assembly will have to be elected.

4. Thailand should have a new charter around May next year. This is assuming that the turbulence I predict in (2) does not derail everything. Given the government's strong public support, the draft of the new charter should be something it likes and should comfortably pass the referendum.

5. New charter, (potentially) new trouble. As mentioned in (2), a new constitution that keeps Article 309 of the existing one will be as good as the existing one. So, if we assume that we are going to have a new charter, we also will have to assume that it will contain no protection for the consequences of the 2006 coup. And a charter that virtually disowns the 2006 coup will open up a lot of possibilities (good or ominous depending on your political stand). For example, it may allow Thaksin to come home a free man and even enable him to launch a legal fight for his seized assets. As we all know, Thailand's crisis has revolved mostly around him and his wealth, so, while there is no urgent need for seatbelt tightening, keeping one hand on it wouldn't hurt.

-- The Nation 2012-02-15

[CalgaryII]

^

She has tried to distance herself - or her brother Thaksin, to be more exact - from charter amendment,

Not sure about that motivation. All elements of the Govt/UDD/Red Shirts are tightly committed to Constitutional reform, and were elected with that intent clearly stated and acknowledged by the voters.

The ruling camp will likely dominate the drafting assembly

.

As it should.

They represent the electoral majority. An electoral minority does not carry equal weight. At least this action is being undertaken by entities selected electorally, rather than otherwise, as was the case with the current constitutional drafters

So, how many pro-government drafters will be among the 77? If we take the last general election's results as an indication, the answer could be well over half.

As it should be

Considering that "nothing else" is there to be changed about this charter except its protection of legal consequences of the 2006 coup, the drafters will have no choice but to zoom in on this highly explosive matter.

Considering it was an unelected, coup-originated administration who constructed the current Constitution, “everything” will be subject to review.

The Nitirat proposals address this issue directly.

“….a charter that virtually disowns the 2006 coup will open up a lot of possibilities”

As it should.

As we all know, Thailand's crisis has revolved mostly around him

Only in the realm of the Opposition coup-ists, soundly defeated in an election, in part because of that focus.

[gregb]

The current government has no interest in charter reform, except as amending the constitution has proven incidental to their real goal...whitewashing the criminal fugitive in Dubai of his crimes. You can be sure that if the square faced demagogue were eliminated tomorrow, so would any rewriting of the constitution.

From this perspective, we can see the real goal of this amendment is to pave the way for civil war. By intentionally disembowling the rule of law and allowing the fugitive to go free, the red terrorists and their PT cohorts are setting the stage for bullets to fly and thousands to be killed. Of course, they care nothing about this. They are quite happy to destroy the country for their own, despicable purposes.

If there was any true concern by these villains for justice or democracy, they would select equal representation from both sides of the divide, and demand a super majority approve any drafts. That would ensure that any changes were truly in the best interests of the country, rather than only in the best interests of the terrorist Thaksin and his criminal syndicate.

This is a very bad omen, and while we all hope the military will step in and do something to prevent this tragedy, it would only be prudent to have a backup plan if things get bad.

[CalgaryII]

^

The current government has no interest in charter reform,

Very difficult to support, given its' central focus of an election which produced an electoral majority Government

"...amending the constitution has proven incidental to their real goal...whitewashing the criminal fugitive in Dubai of his crimes"

A favorite mantra the opposition uses to denigrate constitutional reform motives. Simple and easy to understand by those who want to.

The following reasons are the real ones:

", the present constitution does not support political parties but undermines them.

Under the constitution, procedures to create independent organisations and select their members lack public participation and go against the principle of democracy, the panel said.

Independent organisations and the judiciary are allowed to operate without a system of checks and balances, which adversely affects the justice system and results in double standards.

Moreover, the constitution is undemocratic as it resulted from the 2006 military coup.

The charter creates divisions among the public, which necessitates drawing up a new and a more democratic constitution, the drafting panel said.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"... the red terrorists and their PT cohorts are setting the stage for bullets to fly and thousands to be killed.

Those referred to as "Red terrorists" were in fact taxpayers objecting to a coup which stole the Govt. they elected.

For standing up to them, the 'coup-ists" have worked hard to characterize them as being anti-social, anarchistic and yes, terrorists.

Standing up to a coup, and armed force to prevent this "standing up", does not make them any of those things, except to the Coup-ists.

Those who attacked anti-coup protesters are OK....protesters who reacted feebly, compared to what they were up against, are demonized in some quarters

They are quite happy to destroy the country for their own, despicable purposes.

Coups destroy countries, those who don't accept coups save the country.

"...they would select equal representation from both sides of the divide, and demand a super majority approve any drafts.

That principle did not concern the coup-ists.

Constitutional realities ought to reflect electoral realities, not those of a minority.

"....while we all hope the military will step in..."

Who are the 'we all' in this instance?

Given this last sentence, certainly puts the rest of the Post in perspective.

But I know there are a minority holding to this point of view.

There are those in favor of Democracy, and those who are not.

Not complicated