Will drafting a new Thai charter really mean reform?

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Will drafting a new charter really mean reform?
Attayuth Bootsripoom

BANGKOK: -- The National Reform Council is expected to convene its first meeting next week. No more than 15 days after that the Constitution Drafting Committee will be established to write a new charter to replace the one abolished after the coup in May.

Drafting of a new constitution will be done under the concept of "national reform". Many people understand that this "designing" of a new power structure will result in changes to Thai society. Others hope that things will return to normal, or at least there will be no violent street protests again.

The question is whether those expectations are likely to materialise. Is the so-called "reform" now under way really a reform? How much do the people involved in this ongoing process understand about reform?

Reform proposals abound; some attracting praise and others being denounced. What we need is a reform that is designed in a way that the entire system works smoothly. The attention should not be focused on just certain issues of choice.

Many proposals are interesting and worth considering, but the challenge is how to "write the new rules" that make those ideas work effectively for the country. For example, a proposal calls for direct election of a prime minister, contrary to the traditional selection of the government head by elected members of Parliament. There are also proposals for the prime minister to be chosen by a selection committee and for the PM to be a political "outsider".

A big challenge is how to design the entire system to work in unison. For example, the direct election of a prime minister indicates a strong mandate and public support for the elected head of government, but problems may arise if the majority of MPs in the House of Representatives come from a political party different from that of the PM. A mechanism should be created to ensure that disagreement between the PM and the House will not obstruct the government's work.

Attention should also be paid to how m,uch power a PM should be given from a direct election. Should the PM's power be restricted or not?

As for an appointed prime minister who is a non-politician, should he/she be responsible to their parliamentary duties, or subject to power restrictions or tough scrutiny? The constitution drafters should widely discuss and attempt to answer these questions.

There are also decisions as to whether the Parliament should be unicameral or bicameral. There is a proposal for a Parliament with three chambers, the third one being a "people's assembly".

Regarding the Senate, if we agree that it should exist, we should not just think about whether senators should be elected or appointed. We should also think about the scope of their power - whether they should just screen the draft laws, or also appoint members of independent organisations and have the power to impeach political office holders.

If MPs have limited power, do we need to reduce the number of MPs? There is a proposal that one MP per province is sufficient for the job of legislating.

There is also the matter of decentralisation of power. Should local administrative organisations be given more power to run provincial affairs? Or should both the central government and the local administrations be given more power?

It is undeniable that the powers in all parts of society are interconnected. In order to solve problems in the system, we should not just address a few problematic points. In doing so, not only will we be unable to solve them, but the problem would be allowed to fester and worsen.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Will-drafting-a-new-charter-really-mean-reform-30245570.html


-- The Nation 2014-10-16

[englishoak]

In a word.... nope.

[chainarong]

Reforms what are those , nothing will change, real reforms are not a high point within the ruling elite and from what I can understand the reforms were a smokescreen for other reasons for the coup, everyone from Khun Suthep down to P.M.General Prayuth all played a game.

[noitom]

No - It's a charade.

[Emster23]

"write a new charter to replace the one abolished after the coup in May."

Please refresh my brain on why old one was abolished.... was that done according to Constitution? Section 439-43: "The military may stage coup and throw out Constitution only after adequate street protests demanding democracy and funded by elite". (kidding). If YL can be impeached under thrown out constitution, shouldn't same apply to current government for grabbing power? Seems their actions a bit more extreme than wanting relative in cabinet. I always think of RFK being attorney general in USA under his brother JFK....

[Tatsujin]

I've done a complete 180 . . . nothing's gonna change, we're back to the old pre-Thaksin days now . . .

[bassman]

Sounds like the problems are all being solved, an appointed (or anointed) PM, more appointments and less elections to the senate and gutting the power of parliament. Should keep all the reforms in place for a new constitution.

[rickirs]

Will there ever be a reform that dissuades a military from constantly overthrowing an elected government and "reforming" the constitution back to its advantage? Until there is reform that puts ALL elements of society on the equal political footing and access to power, any new constitution is a meaningless literary exercise; it might as well be written on gasoline-soaked tissue.

[razer]

Reform happens when ....

Bankers go to jail for laundering money

Elite go to jail for breaking the law or facilitating the escpe of a criminal

Local mafia strongmen go to jail for illegal activity

Police and other civil servants go to jail for breaking the law

When politicians go to jail for breaking the law

This is in Thailand and every other country.

A charter can't not bring reform. Only action can do that.

[marcusd]

In a nutshell... NO. Thailand corruption starts ay the TOP and is covered up all the way.

Whilst I was hoping for a miracle it appears the black holes will remain for dirty secrets to be hidden forever

[GarryP]

I've done a complete 180 . . . nothing's gonna change, we're back to the old pre-Thaksin days now . . .

Can you expand on that? If I get your meaning, you were originally postive about the coup and the plans for the future, such as political reform, anti-corruption crusade, etc. but have become disenchanted. I am afraid this now describes me too. The honeymoon is certainly over, and we are not looking at a future of wedded bliss.

Edited October 17, 2014 by GarryP

[Tatsujin]

I've done a complete 180 . . . nothing's gonna change, we're back to the old pre-Thaksin days now . . .

Can you expand on that? If I get your meaning, you were originally postive about the coup and the plans for the future, such as political reform, anti-corruption crusade, etc. but have become disenchanted. I am afraid this now describes me too. The honeymoon is certainly over, and we are not looking at a future of wedded bliss.

Yes, I saw the "potential" for very positive changes being made here since the coup, however I've come to realize that really nothing much ever changes here, and no matter what they say, they don't actually want much to change after all. It also makes absolutely NO difference "who" is in power . . . they're all the same, looking out for #1 and <deleted> the people.

The big dogs like the corruption and the power and the money and will do or say anything to keep their sticky little hands on it and to remain in power/control/raking in the cash. That's the same no matter what color shirt you wear.

Everything they've said for years and years is lip service, nothing much more than that . . . they'll do the bare minimum to keep people "happy" whilst continuing to cream off that "unusual wealth" with impunity while the whole country suffers for it.

<deleted> 'em.