Thai editorial: Don't let Constitution open loophole to a fresh crisis

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
Don't let Constitution open loophole to a fresh crisis
The Naton

Charter writers need to be more precise in their clause allowing a non-elected prime minister

BANGKOK: -- The writing of the new charter is now in its final stage, with the drafters working on the last transitional clauses. But the blueprint slowly emerging from the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) contains details that raise serious concerns. Rather than ending the old conflict, the new charter could trigger a fresh one.

One major concern involves a provision that would allow a non-elected citizen to become prime minister. This is described by critics as a retrogressive change from the two previous constitutions, of 1997 and 2007, which required that the premier be an elected member of Parliament.

That requirement was reintroduced in the so-called People's Constitution of 1997, five years after street demonstrations against an unelected prime minister led to a bloody crackdown. What came to be known as Black May of 1992 was sparked by a popular uprising against the appointment of General Suchinda Kraprayoon as prime minister by a Parliamentary majority after the March 1992 election. A year earlier, in February 1991, Suchinda had led a coup that ousted the elected government of Chatichai Choonhavan. The general had earlier made a public vow he would not take the role of prime minister, but then argued that it was in the national interest that he break that promise. Thousands took to the streets to protest his rise to power, and the authorities launched a crackdown that killed dozens of demonstrators.

The drafters of our latest Constitution have argued that the clause permitting a non-elected prime minister would only be triggered in times of crisis. But their failure to enshrine that caveat clearly within the charter fosters further concern. The worry is that the clause as it stands would enable wealthy individuals to buy their way into power, bypassing the democratic process.

Key figures in the government and the National Council for Peace and Order have dismissed speculation that the coup-makers might seek to remain in power after the general election held under the new Constitution. Their assurances have not been enough to allay fears that the premiership could come under the sway of powerful and wealthy individuals, thereby opening the way for a new round of political conflict.

In order to avoid that fate, the charter writers must make clear in the new constitution in what circumstances a prime minister from outside Parliament can be appointed.

Last year's coup followed a violent political impasse that might have been avoided, some say, had we had the option of appointing a prime minister who was not a member of Parliament.

Abhisit Vejjajiva, former prime minister and Democrat Party leader, has backed calls for clarity in the new Constitution over exactly who would be empowered to appoint a prime minister and in what circumstances. He noted that crisis often arises in Thailand after the dissolution of Parliament, leaving no MPs to elect a prime minister.

The CDC should ensure that the public's major concerns are properly addressed. The post-coup provisional charter states that the CDC should take public opinion into consideration in drafting the new Constitution. Failing to do so risks triggering widespread opposition to the draft charter, which could come back to haunt us should a national referendum be held to decide the fate of our new Constitution.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Dont-let-Constitution-open-loophole-to-a-fresh-cri-30255340.html


-- The Nation 2015-03-05

[BSJ]

A Prime Minister not elected by the people is just not the right way to do it. History has shown that.

[NeverSure]

A constitution which can be changed by each new government isn't a constitution at all. A constitution us a foundation and a set of limits which a new government can't violate. A constitution is something which must be very hard to change, and any changes must involve voting by the people or their close elected representatives and it must be a long and deliberated process.

A constitution is what keeps each successive government including courts in check.

This idea of a constitution is no more than a loose set of rules which will get changed with changes of government and no one is accountable. It's no wonder Thailand has no continuity.

[zaphod reborn]

A Prime Minister not elected by the people is just not the right way to do it. History has shown that.

PMs are never elected, but always selected by the MPs. It's not a democratic process, but rather a representative one. If you want an elected leader, you would support general election of a president or premier. There's little difference between a PM who was elected by a very small part of the country, and a non-PM. It doesn't make the process any more democratic that the PM be a current MP.

[WitawatWatawit]

A Prime Minister not elected by the people is just not the right way to do it. History has shown that.

PMs are never elected, but always selected by the MPs. It's not a democratic process, but rather a representative one. If you want an elected leader, you would support general election of a president or premier. There's little difference between a PM who was elected by a very small part of the country, and a non-PM. It doesn't make the process any more democratic that the PM be a current MP.

It depends on what you would prefer - a presidential system or a strictly party system. With the latter, atleast you are voting for a group of people with whom you have ideological bonds, and any changes to the party or leader are done democratically. The leader is important, but replaceable if unacceptable to the party and country. A directly elected leader, however, is more difficult to change - sorry if this sounds patronising, but I think a presidential system is just a bit too complicated for the average Thai voter.

[chainarong]

The editorial has answered its own question, the Junta has raised so many loopholes that the only way out will be a massive showdown with the military at a future date , the main crux of the matter is to hold a referendum on all matters that affect the population and let them decide the future for Thailand, not Generals telling everyone what's good for them.

[NeilSA1]

Good for Abhisit Vejjajiva, (and others) for seeking "clarity" in the new Constitution. The time is now for ironing out any future potential. preventable, political problems.

(sorry about all the 'P's , its the effect my water pills have on me.)

[Laughing Gravy]

The article mentioned some good points. It would seem that the politics here goes forward one step and back two. The same problems time again when in todays modern world Thailand should be taking two steps forward.

I won't be surprised if the same things happens again in the next few years. If there is to be any form of democracy (I don't buy that democracy isn't right for Thailand) the party that wins a fair election has to start with popular policies for the people. If not we will continue with this rich/poor divide. I will be waiting to see just exactly what the constitution will really mean and what effect it will have on the supposedly, future elections.

[soalbundy]

For Thai politics a coup is just the icing on the cake,no big deal, it has happened before and it will happen again no matter what they write into the umpteenth constitution, it don't mean a thing.

[timewilltell]

A Prime Minister not elected by the people is just not the right way to do it. History has shown that.

PMs are never elected, but always selected by the MPs. It's not a democratic process, but rather a representative one. If you want an elected leader, you would support general election of a president or premier. There's little difference between a PM who was elected by a very small part of the country, and a non-PM. It doesn't make the process any more democratic that the PM be a current MP.

There is a vast difference between an elected representative being selected by other elected representatives as PM and a person who has not been elected by any of the people.

This provision is not a good one but then given the empty headed way Thais write laws and their complete misunderstanding of the basis of a constitution, is there any surprise at the lunacy of the proposals. The most sensible one was from the CDC who said the current lot drafting the rules should not be able to stand for election for at least two years - it should be five years along with the MP's from the PTP and Democratic parties from the last election. Time for some new blood and out with the old power bases. That would be a fresh start.

[Srikcir]

"Failing to do so risks triggering widespread opposition to the draft charter, which could come back to haunt us should a national referendum be held to decide the fate of our new Constitution."

There will be NO national referendum in order to avoid widespread opposition to the draft constitution. There will be no risk of failure.

The NLA will declare that the draft was the product of public participation and no further validity was needed. The NLA will pass into law the 2015 Constitution without further debate in what is sure to be an unanimous vote on the first reading.

[trogers]

An honest mistake cannot be used as a defence in the Constitution Court.

[bassman]

Really do they need to waist all the ink and time to decide this? This is Thailand's 20th constitution in 80 years. The military has been real good at selecting an unelected PM, does anyone think for a minute that is about to change anytime in this century?

[soalbundy]

Really do they need to waist all the ink and time to decide this? This is Thailand's 20th constitution in 80 years. The military has been real good at selecting an unelected PM, does anyone think for a minute that is about to change anytime in this century?

No, but hey,never let constipation get in the way of a good meal.........or was it ''constitution'' oh never mind something to do with gorging yourself anyway.

[cumgranosalum]

Abhisit is essentially a flabby cabbage - he is a right of centre politician who brown nosed his way into power under the last junta. He has never won an election in his entire career, but he is at least familiar with parliamentary democracy - even if he doesn't seem to remain that faithful to it at times........ BUT even he finds the proposed constitution unpalatable even unworkable. and worst of all likely to plunge the country into further chaos.

the current regime are whether they know it or not gradually forcing the likes of thaksin and Abhisit together in the same boat as they all look on in horror at the bias of the draft constitution promulgated by the junta.

Unelected PM and nominated upper house that is more powerful that a lower house elected on a system that is nothing short of bizarre........ what do they expect???

[cumgranosalum]

A Prime Minister not elected by the people is just not the right way to do it. History has shown that.

PMs are never elected, but always selected by the MPs. It's not a democratic process, but rather a representative one. If you want an elected leader, you would support general election of a president or premier. There's little difference between a PM who was elected by a very small part of the country, and a non-PM. It doesn't make the process any more democratic that the PM be a current MP.

s that the PM need not even be a member of parliament.

appointed by thew "great and the good" it would come as no surprise ,say, if he was an army general?

Edited March 10, 2015 by cumgranosalum