Charter will ensure more scrutiny

[Lite Beer]

CDC
Charter will ensure more scrutiny
NITIPOL KIRAVANICH
THE SUNDAY NATION

BANGKOK: -- Constitution drafters maintain that the new charter will strengthen people's power of scrutiny, as members of independent organisations with the authority to scrutinise will also be subject to scrutiny.

Paiboon Nititawan, a member of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC), said on Friday that empowering people to scrutinise the use of government authority is necessary to lead to better justice in Thailand.

"Before May 22 last year [before the coup], the process of scrutinising the government was clearly weak, which led to people's movement on the streets.

So stipulating people's rights to scrutinise the government more will promote better justice," said Paiboon.

He is also responsible for the matter of government and state scrutiny in the charter draft.

Regarding the organisations involved with scrutiny of the government, the CDC had stipulated that the members of such bodies must declare their assets and debts to the public, and also that the members would be evaluated by the National Evaluation Committee.

During the National Reform Council (NRC) meeting to scrutinise and suggest their opinions regarding the new constitution draft, CDC member Lertrat Ratanawanit reserved his rights on discussing the two main topics covering independent organisations - particularly the Election Commission (EC) and the newly established independent body "Election Organising Committee".

Lertrat pointed out that authority to give a red card to candidates by the EC was highly inappropriate, reasoning that such an authority impinges on the democratic rights of people who the right to elect candidates. He said giving such an authority to an independent body is unlawful.

"If the EC has the authority to give red cards, there would be a question about the rule of law, and the authority should be within legislative organisations," Lertrat said.

The CDC member then explained that giving a legislative organisation the power would be more lawful, citing the practices of countries such as Germany and Britain that also used this system.

Meanwhile, another CDC member Nareewan Chintakanond, who is also deputy chairman of the drafting committee, added that members of organisations responsible for scrutinising the government's use of power in any agencies can only serve one term and with one organisation.

Therefore, the draft states that members of independent bodies cannot participate in other scrutinising agencies, in order to ensure decentralisation.

However, after the CDC had explained such matters, reformers resumed their debate. Kachadpai Burusapatana voiced concern over the chapter on independent organisations that merges the National Human Rights Commission and the Office of Ombudsman. He told the CDC that merging these bodies is not the right action.

Another NRC member Churirat Chullachakkawat, who is also a member of the Election Commission in Chiang Mai province, proposed to the CDC to look at setting up a new election body.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Charter-will-ensure-more-scrutiny-30258765.html

-- The Nation 2015-04-26

[eeworldwide]

I'm scrutinising this article to find just an ounce of logic.

[NongKhaiKid]

there's that word ' independent ' again but who or what here is ever truly independent ?

[Strangebrew]

Interdependant, as dependant on the baht fattest wallet wins.

[phoenixdoglover]

The new Charter should unequivocally assert freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Repeal lese mageste laws.

Then you will get scrutiny of government.

Of course, I am dreaming.

[heybruce]

"Regarding the organisations involved with scrutiny of the government, the CDC had stipulated that the members of such bodies must declare their assets and debts to the public, and also that the members would be evaluated by the National Evaluation Committee."

Note that they are stubbornly resisting the obvious and most effective measures to limit corruption--everyone in government in a position to influence government spending should make regular asset declarations. This includes the military, civil service, judiciary and politicians. Combine this with transparency in spending, strict conflict of interest laws and a truly free press and corruption becomes much more difficult and risky.

Why don't they do this? Could it be that the military, judiciary and civil service don't want transparency and effective means to eliminate corruption?

[FangFerang]

Now, let's add gerrymandering to the mix of selective asset declarations and selective morality evaluations and selective enforcement of land laws -- and wah lah!

No more unhappiness.

Right?

[Srikcir]

And if the charter with its attendant ten independent organizations fail to scrutinize the breathe out of democracy, there is always the military waiting to abolish everything. Now a charter that would SCRUTINIZE the military and place it under civilian COMMAND, that would be a game changer for Thailand.

[phoenixdoglover]

"Now a charter that would SCRUTINIZE the military and place it under civilian COMMAND, that would be a game changer for Thailand."

I am convinced the current draft Charter is designed to do exactly the opposite. Instead, the military will be enshrined in a direct political role by the numerous appointed groups, including:

1) The largely appointed Senate, with positions carved out for the Generals

2) The various other appointed bodies, too numerous to mention, likewise including the military

3) The appointed (but only if there is a "crisis") PM

(and there is the additional feature of an elected lower house that is almost guaranteed to be an ineffectual mess of small parties, which only enhances the power of the appointed bodies. How nice!)

Assuming The Great Winged Charter actually flies.

Edited April 26, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[rubl]

"Now a charter that would SCRUTINIZE the military and place it under civilian COMMAND, that would be a game changer for Thailand."

I am convinced the current draft Charter is designed to do exactly the opposite. Instead, the military will be enshrined in a direct political role by the numerous appointed groups, including:

1) The largely appointed Senate, with positions carved out for the Generals

2) The various other appointed bodies, too numerous to mention, likewise including the military

3) The appointed (but only if there is a "crisis") PM

(and there is the additional feature of an elected lower house that is almost guaranteed to be an ineffectual mess of small parties, which only enhances the power of the appointed bodies. How nice!)

Assuming The Great Winged Charter actually flies.

So, did you already get access to a nearly complete draft charter, or are you basing your "I am convinced" on all statements, rumours and what have we which got floated around?

[rubl]

And if the charter with its attendant ten independent organizations fail to scrutinize the breathe out of democracy, there is always the military waiting to abolish everything. Now a charter that would SCRUTINIZE the military and place it under civilian COMMAND, that would be a game changer for Thailand.

A charter doesn't scrutinise, a charger gives a framework which get filled in with organic laws.

The Military are under the Minister of Defence, like they were under MoD Ms. Yingluck. The only difference a new charter, reforms and so should bring is the actual application of 'responsibility' and 'accountability'. That would include all, including the military, the police, the ministers, the MPs and Senators, etc., etc.

As it is, the last part is and was missing.

[EnglishJohn]

And if the charter with its attendant ten independent organizations fail to scrutinize the breathe out of democracy, there is always the military waiting to abolish everything. Now a charter that would SCRUTINIZE the military and place it under civilian COMMAND, that would be a game changer for Thailand.

It certainly would. Hundreds of protestors would have been killed by red-shirt terrorists by now.

When certain parts of Thai society come out of the medieval age and join civilisation, then it will be time to reduce the power of the Army. For now they are the last line of defence against megalomaniacs such as Mr T.