Charter Change No Sure Thing For Thai Government

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Charter change no sure thing for government
Attayuth Bootsripoom

BANGKOK: -- Although the government has chosen a compromise route by seeking to amend four provisions of the Constitution instead of rewriting the entire charter, the amendment effort will still face many obstacles.

The government decided to abandon its ambitious plan to construct an entire mountain at once; instead, it is now seeking to secure one rock at a time, before putting them together later.

It won't be easy to get the three charter-amendment bills enacted. The bills' passage could meet obstacles at any step of the way, amid doubts about the government's motives. Each of the three bills has a different level of difficulty when it comes to enactment.

The first bill would change how senators are elected. Currently, there are two types of senators - 76 are elected from 76 provinces and 74 others are appointed by a selection committee. The amendment bill seeks to increase the number of senators to 200 and require all of them to be elected.

This bill seems to have met the least opposition after the first reading began on Monday. Moreover, the bill would allow incumbent senators to stand in the next election without having to wait for a term. So, the bill is expected to receive a lot of support from senators.

The second amendment bill is seen as a give-and-take draft. It seeks to delete the second paragraph of Article 237 to abolish the penalties of party dissolution and political bans for party executives. But it would also amend Article 68 to restrict the people's rights to seek Constitution Court rulings.

Earlier, the Constitution Court invoked Article 68 to accept a petition against the Article 291-amendment bill, which sought to amend the charter so that an entirely new constitution could be drafted.

Now, the amendment bill seeks to require that petitions to the court be sent via the attorney-general only.

Of course, the opposition and senators who oppose the government will disagree with the amendment of Article 68, because they will have no tool to fight against the government. Anyway, the opposition parties will have to ponder whether to support this amendment, as it could also face party-dissolution cases later.

Moreover, a senator has filed a complaint with the Constitution Court against the amendment to Article 68. The opponents see that the government wants to amend this article so that it could rewrite the entire charter in the future.

It has yet to see how the government would deal with the Constitution Court, because if the court decides to proceed with a trial and the government fails to defend itself, the coalition parties could even be dissolved.

The last bill seeks to amend Article 190. At first glance, it is aimed at allowing the government to work with greater ease when dealing with foreign governments.

The article would be amended to require only deals that affect the country's boundaries and sovereignty be sent for Parliament's approval. Critics wonder what issues would be left for Parliament to approve before the government can ink international deals.

Opponents fear that the amendment would allow the government to ink deals related to disputed areas or sign state concessions without having to seek approval from Parliament. They fear that the amendment would allow politicians in power to get away with conflicts of interest, and that deals will be signed with foreign governments with no transparency, putting Thailand at a disadvantage.

As a result, the planned amendment of Article 190 might be cited to incite public sentiment against all the charter amendments. And signs have emerged that several groups will rally protesters to demonstrate against the enactment of the amendment bills.

Therefore, the amendments are not a piece of cake for the government - both inside and outside Parliament. In Parliament, it will have to garner up to 350 votes to pass each bill. Outside Parliament, it will meet several groups of protesters and the coalition may even run into an iron wall of opposition from the Constitution Court.

It will not be easy for the government to pass amendment bills unless it can clarify all the concerns that it has an ulterior motive.


-- The Nation 2013-04-04

[Locationthailand]

If the reasoning behind the changes can be clearly unlinked to a convicted criminal or from his behest, they may have a better chance.

[rametindallas]

If the reasoning behind the changes can be clearly unlinked to a convicted criminal or from his behest, they may have a better chance.

Unfortunately for Thailand, you can see the link back to Dr. Thaksin in every proposed change. For the first, he knows he can get enough votes to dominate the Senate the same way he dominates the lower house and have a 'rubber stamp' government. For the second, he has had bad experience with party dissolution and also, if his party controls the attorney-general's office, none of his opponents will be able to involve the Constitutional Court. There will be no 'higher authority' than the government i.e. Dr. Thaksin. Thirdly, if Parliament doesn't have to be involved, Dr. Thaksin has a long list of deals he would like to share with Mr. Hun Sen of Cambodia re: oilfield development in disputed waters etc. I understand Mr. Hun Sen already has a 'rubber stamp' government and they will be then be free to make all types of 'special' arrangements.

[Dap]

If the reasoning behind the changes can be clearly unlinked to a convicted criminal or from his behest, they may have a better chance.

Then, methinks there would be no reason for the amendments.

[Locationthailand]

If the reasoning behind the changes can be clearly unlinked to a convicted criminal or from his behest, they may have a better chance.

Then, methinks there would be no reason for the amendments.

Exactly...

[ZhouZhou]

The first bill would change how senators are elected. Currently, there are two types of senators - 76 are elected from 76 provinces and 74 others are appointed by a selection committee. The amendment bill seeks to increase the number of senators to 200 and require all of them to be elected.

That is one of the points that upsets the Democrats the most.

it is to much democracy for them.

military or judical coups- no problem. but election - big issue.

[thaicbr]

The first bill would change how senators are elected. Currently, there are two types of senators - 76 are elected from 76 provinces and 74 others are appointed by a selection committee. The amendment bill seeks to increase the number of senators to 200 and require all of them to be elected.

That is one of the points that upsets the Democrats the most.

it is to much democracy for them.

military or judical coups- no problem. but election - big issue.

Ha ha ha ha.. Really

[ZhouZhou]

The first bill would change how senators are elected. Currently, there are two types of senators - 76 are elected from 76 provinces and 74 others are appointed by a selection committee. The amendment bill seeks to increase the number of senators to 200 and require all of them to be elected.

That is one of the points that upsets the Democrats the most.

it is to much democracy for them.

military or judical coups- no problem. but election - big issue.

Ha ha ha ha.. Really

yes. really.

or could you me explain what the appointed senators would make better then elected ones and what would be wrong with the latter.

is there any rational reason or just no interests in a democratic process.

[siampolee]

Indeed abolish the appointed senators system, at the same time with the same stroke of the pen abolish the Party List too,

No need for nepotism and political refuge for criminals in and business types in positions of power to allow a select few to line their own pockets or evade justice.

[bigbamboo]

Looking at the proposed changes from a neutral standpoint it seems PTP have an excellent case with the article related to electing senators. Many would like a similar policy in our House of Lords.

The other three appear to benefit one man and others connected to his ruling party. I think Thais want more democracy not less.

[ZhouZhou]

Indeed abolish the appointed senators system, at the same time with the same stroke of the pen abolish the Party List too,

No need for nepotism and political refuge for criminals in and business types in positions of power to allow a select few to line their own pockets or evade justice.

what is wrong with the party list system?

abolishing it would make Abhisit even more angry.

[Buchholz]

The first bill would change how senators are elected. Currently, there are two types of senators - 76 are elected from 76 provinces and 74 others are appointed by a selection committee. The amendment bill seeks to increase the number of senators to 200 and require all of them to be elected.

That is one of the points that upsets the Democrats the most.

it is to much democracy for them.

What evidence do you have that shows it is the most upsetting point?

If the PTP want to show democracy in the Senate, make it straight-up partisan, instead of its current fake non-partisan status.

Also, why is there a need to increase the numbers to 200 Senators?

.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Buchholz

[h90]

If the reasoning behind the changes can be clearly unlinked to a convicted criminal or from his behest, they may have a better chance.

if you remove all self serving changes and there won't be any changes...

[siampolee]

what is wrong with the party list system?

abolishing it would make Abhisit even more angry.

The foisting of non elected criminals and financial bandits by whatever party is nothing more that a total insult to the electorate and indeed an affront to democracy and a classic method of packing the seats with those that agree with a particular dogma.

abolishing it would make Abhisit even more angry.

When one views the criminal and terrorists fraternity that are currently receiving refuge from the due process of the law courtesy of the current P.TP. (Parasites and Ticks Party) maladministration one can well understand why Abhisit like a good many other citizens are angry.