Thai Charter's 'four main pillars' will bring positive change, drafting chief says

[webfact]

Charter's 'four main pillars' will bring positive change, drafting chief says
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- THE HEAD of the Constitution Drafting Committee hopes the new charter now being put together will be the last of many the country has had. Borwornsak Uwanno said its "four main pillars" would change Thailand for the better, once and for all.

The four pillars are a wider role for citizens in politics, a more effective checks-and-balances system for power to foster clean politics, a diminishing of economic inequality and a mechanism to pursue sustainable peace and reconciliation.

Many of the provisions included in the new constitution are designed to solve past problems. But critics wonder that even if they succeed in doing that, will they create new, and perhaps more severe, problems?

Attasit Pankaew, a political scientist at Thammasat University, said yesterday that from his observation, the charter framers have two issues they look to solve under the political section of the charter.

They do not want big party politics and a separation of powers for effective checks and balances. This had led to the introduction of the mixed member proportional election system and the new acquisition of Senate members, for example.

In the past, the Senate fell under the influence of political parties. Since Senate candidates need support from political parties to win votes, they become indebted to party leaders.

The charter drafters also wrote new articles changing the structure of the Senate as part of their move to keep the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament separate and allow for a better system of checks and balances. Now all senators will come from appointment in an indirect election system from various "social groups" in society.

The new Senate structure could free senators from the influence of political problems, but the jury was still out on whether it is appropriate to arguably give appointed MPs power equal to elected MPs and if this creates dissent when appointed MPs' decisions overrule elected MPs, he said.

Satithorn Thananithichote, a researcher from King Prajadhipok's Institute, said such the move would give official political standing to power groups within society that may not have enough of a support base to win parliamentary seats in an election.

"The conservatives are clearly demanding more of their political space back," he said.

However, rules governing the Senate were not specific enough, he said. For example, to what extent can the Senate run a profile check on candidates for minister?

If these rules are not specific and clear enough, one political group after another could use it as a political tool.

But it may help the system to avoid conflict if all power groups would be given official standing, and a position from which to compromise.

Many provisions are also written to separate the executive and legislative branches. The executive branch under the new constitution will be strengthened with the aim of creating a stable government.

The PM also doesn't have to be an elected member of parliament, meaning an "outsider" can assume the office with support from MPs. Charter drafters argued such a provision could offer an alternative option for the country, in time of crisis.

However, the move has been criticised by sections of the public, who have suggested that the provision will give the wealthy and powerful the chance to sit in the country's chief executive office without testing their public popularity.

The article to strengthen the executive branch stipulates that the prime minister can propose a vote of confidence by MPs in the administration. However, in cases where the PM receives less than half of the vote, the premier, upon obtaining royal approval, can dissolve the Lower House.

Past experience suggests that coalition parties or some groups of MPs will have high leverage over the executive branch to keep them in the coalition.

Such a provision is designed to strengthen the executive under circumstances in which certain groups of MPs or coalition parties begin to "cause trouble" - for example, by voting against proposed bills. "What MPs fear the most is the election, because for them it is the most trying period," a CDC member said.

If the executive sought a vote of confidence from Parliament, it could be seen as sending a message to MPs saying that either they support the administration or they face another general election.

However, Satithorn expressed concern for this provision. Although the charter drafters may be successful in creating a stable government, he worried that such a provision would discourage the opposition from doing their job, which would weaken the checks-and-balances system.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Charters-four-main-pillars-will-bring-positive-cha-30255146.html


-- The Nation 2015-03-02

[Strangebrew]

Maybe to ensure that there doing there job setup an impeachment system where if anyone in office fails in doing there job they can be removed and banned for life for any government office and any pension earned is lost. That would include found to be either corrupt or found to have taken a bribe for a favor in return.

.

[canuckamuck]

They seem intent on creating some kind of Frankenstein system. Basically something that appears democratic on the face but controlled by the 1%.

With so many established and stable systems of government in the world to learn from it is a shame that they cannot allow any power to slip from their fingers. I wonder how long this new system will survive.

[tbthailand]

The four pillars are a wider role for citizens in politics, a more effective checks-and-balances system for power to foster clean politics, a diminishing of economic inequality and a mechanism to pursue sustainable peace and reconciliation.

Orwell,

Orwell,

Orwell,

Orwell...

Edited March 2, 2015 by tbthailand

[Somtamnication]

The problem with pillars, as Hercules will tell you, they tend to collapse easily. The metaphor for Hercules, in Thailand's case, is................... corruption.

[bikerbri]

Pie in the sky

[Emster23]

"in cases where the PM receives less than half of the vote, the premier, upon obtaining royal approval, can dissolve the Lower House." Help me out here.... PM would not be elected by upper or lower house, right? So why should lower house be dissolved? If any office should be dissolved, isn't it logical (there's that word again!) shouldn't be the PM? Then hold new election for that office which does not have confidence? This is all just too Alice in Smileland for me....

[phoenixdoglover]

This is a charter born of immense distrust of democracy and elected persons. Just wait until Thai voters discover their votes mean even less than before. Time for another poll indicating how wonderful things are.