Thai politics: Claimed faults in charter draft could seal its fate

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Claimed faults in charter draft could seal its fate
ATTAYUTH BOOTSRIPOOM

BANGKOK: -- THE POSSIBILITY that the charter draft will be passed by the National Reform Committee has been thrown into serious doubt after some critics in the NRC have shown disapproval of several major points written by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC).

Critics may not buy the idea of "pass the charter draft first and amend it later". They learned from attempts to amend the 2007 charter, which proved to be an uphill task and plunged the country into a constitutional and political crisis.

CDC chairman Borwornsak Uwanno has urged the NRC to propose changes to provisions of the charter draft with the logic that the whole basket of fruit should not be discarded just because a few pieces are rotten.

The NRC critics, however, hit back that it was the type of fruit presented that was unacceptable.

The CDC had earlier announced that three major principles in the draft must not be touched - the selection of a prime minister, the election system, and the make-up of the Senate - because these principles formed the core political structure and its check systems.

The NRC members who disapproved of these principles threatened to reject the charter draft if the provisions were not changed. Borwornsak and Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha have tried to persuade critics to accept the charter by saying that elected governments can change it whenever they want - but the changes must be the right ones.

Borwornsak urged reformers to pass this charter draft and put it into use for five years, or experiment with it to see if the new constitution weakened the political system or not.

Former Pheu Thai party-list MP Wattana Muangsuk countered that the draft stated that amendments to the basic principles of the charter required two-thirds of Parliament, or 433 votes, and then the amendment bill must pass a public referendum, which makes amending the constitution almost impossible.

Upon scrutiny of the charter draft, Wattana's points seem valid. Provisions regarding amendments even empower the Constitution Court to reject attempted changes to the following basic principles of the charter draft: principles to ensure that people's rights, freedom and public participation in politics are protected; the political structure of having two Houses of Parliament; the make-up of each House and the balance of power between the government and Parliament; mechanisms to keep budgets and financial discipline in check; the justice system; and the check mechanism, reform and reconciliation.

Finally, what makes it tough to change the charter is the last chapter regarding rules on amending it, starting from provisions 299-303. The charter draft also says this final chapter is not to be touched.

The Constitution Court could also reject an amendment if it sought to change the constitutional-monarchy system or aimed to separate the country into states.

These rules are testimony to Wattana's remark that as written, it would be almost impossible to amend the new constitution.

The requirement for a two-thirds vote is unprecedented, as normally a simple majority of more than half is required for a charter amendment.

Critics have asked, if the drafters insist on designing a charter that is so hard to amend, why not write one that is acceptable from the beginning? The CDC still has time to review the charter to make it democratic and become a sacred law that provides the country's foundation.

The lesson of "pass the charter first and amend it later", in connection with what happened with the 2007 charter, is still vivid in many people's minds.

Not only will amending the new constitution be almost impossible, even attempts to do so might bring about a new round of political conflict and crisis.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Claimed-faults-in-charter-draft-could-seal-its-fat-30259330.html


-- The Nation 2015-05-05

[ChrisY1]

After 20 different charters over the decades, it seems that the Thais still do not have what it takes to get things right......and as the OP suggests, this version is probably going down as a failure yet again!

It's becoming clear that they need specialist assistance.......specialists that it seems, aren't available here it Thailand

[JAG]

Thailand had a perfectly servicable constitution, drafted by an elected panel, in the 1997 constitution.

Unfortunately it resulted in (popularly elected) governments which were not to the "establishments taste". So it was replaced in 2006 by a military drafted constitution which was supposed to take care of that. Unfortunately it resulted in (popularly elected) governments which were not to the "establishments taste". The coup and this subsequent charter (constitution) rewrite are supposed to take care of that. Unfortunately it ........

[greenchair]

I have no doubt that after much fighting and squabbling, the 1997 constitution will be

re-instated to it's former glory. It may need a few tweaks but, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is the only constitution written without political agender in mind, and the only constitution that has ever been legally endorsed by the Thai people. Even without adjustments, the 1997 constitution is the one document that has a good chance to stand the test of time and give the country stability. Given the choice now or 5 years from now,the people would choose the 1997 constitution by a great majority.

It was written with peace and a love of all thai, by the Thai ,for the Thai.

It will be reclaimed with love, by the Thai, for the Thai.

Hopefully, peacefully.

[smutcakes]

So the 3 major issues which are causing contentious are not negotiable according to CDC Chairman, well that's just great.........

He is also advocating that we just accept it and can then modify it later, despite making it virtually impossible to do...

Sounds like this is going to end up in stalemate quick smart, which will need an appointed PM to resolve..............

[lucky11]

Thailand had a perfectly servicable constitution, drafted by an elected panel, in the 1997 constitution.

Unfortunately it resulted in (popularly elected) governments which were not to the "establishments taste". So it was replaced in 2006 by a military drafted constitution which was supposed to take care of that. Unfortunately it resulted in (popularly elected) governments which were not to the "establishments taste". The coup and this subsequent charter (constitution) rewrite are supposed to take care of that. Unfortunately it ........

Fortunately it will result in the situation where irresponsible populist policies will not be able to be used at a bribe to get gullible people to vote criminals into power.

They really don't like the checks and balances bit, do they!!! as it stops them having unfettered power to do what they want.

I think that if they are complaining about it not being right (for the politicians) then that means that they have got it right.

[smedly]

Former Pheu Thai party-list MP Wattana Muangsuk countered that the draft stated that amendments to the basic principles of the charter required two-thirds of Parliament, or 433 votes, and then the amendment bill must pass a public referendum, which makes amending the constitution almost impossible.

Now you are getting it - it means that if proposed changes to the constitution are not in the interests of all Thai people but instead one self serving criminal ........then yes they will never get passed or even proposed, how good is that

If this rule had existed 3 years ago PTP would still be in government

Edited May 5, 2015 by smedly

[smedly]

So the 3 major issues which are causing contentious are not negotiable according to CDC Chairman, well that's just great.........

He is also advocating that we just accept it and can then modify it later, despite making it virtually impossible to do...

Sounds like this is going to end up in stalemate quick smart, which will need an appointed PM to resolve..............

Like I said above if proposed changes are in the interests of the Nation and all of its people then not so difficult to amend, you do realise how difficult it is to amend the constitution in USA Australia etc - they all have a similar if not more difficult process and it is designed that way to ensure that someone like Thaksin or PTP cannot abuse it just because they have a majority of seats - PTP did not represent all of the Thai people, in fact not even the majority

How you don't get this is beyond me

[Srikcir]

"elected governments can change it whenever they want - but the changes must be the right ones."

Might as well not have a constitution. The UK constitutional monarchy has done well without one for hundreds of years. At the rate that the loyalists in Thailand keep overthrowing governments and rewriting constitutions, not having one at all isn't much of a change.

[heybruce]

So the 3 major issues which are causing contentious are not negotiable according to CDC Chairman, well that's just great.........

He is also advocating that we just accept it and can then modify it later, despite making it virtually impossible to do...

Sounds like this is going to end up in stalemate quick smart, which will need an appointed PM to resolve..............

Like I said above if proposed changes are in the interests of the Nation and all of its people then not so difficult to amend, you do realise how difficult it is to amend the constitution in USA Australia etc - they all have a similar if not more difficult process and it is designed that way to ensure that someone like Thaksin or PTP cannot abuse it just because they have a majority of seats - PTP did not represent all of the Thai people, in fact not even the majority

How you don't get this is beyond me

You really are on a whiskey diet, aren't you?

The charter is unacceptable as written. If it were flawless as written the difficulty in changing it wouldn't be an issue.

[smedly]

So the 3 major issues which are causing contentious are not negotiable according to CDC Chairman, well that's just great.........

He is also advocating that we just accept it and can then modify it later, despite making it virtually impossible to do...

Sounds like this is going to end up in stalemate quick smart, which will need an appointed PM to resolve..............

Like I said above if proposed changes are in the interests of the Nation and all of its people then not so difficult to amend, you do realise how difficult it is to amend the constitution in USA Australia etc - they all have a similar if not more difficult process and it is designed that way to ensure that someone like Thaksin or PTP cannot abuse it just because they have a majority of seats - PTP did not represent all of the Thai people, in fact not even the majority

How you don't get this is beyond me

You really are on a whiskey diet, aren't you?

The charter is unacceptable as written. If it were flawless as written the difficulty in changing it wouldn't be an issue.

was the personal comment really necessary

anyway you said "The charter is unacceptable as written" in your opinion which you are entitled too, you speak for nobody else.

Thais that seem to be rejecting it are those that will be most affected by it which is understandable since it makes it more difficult for them to abuse power and corrupt and also forces a dose of accountability all of which is undeniably and badly needed here in Thailand - it still gets a solid thumbs up from me

[MaxLee]

Bla, bla bla.... It's just about "My way-Thai way-or the highway....."

[rubl]

Still reading the April draft, not really holiday literature.

I'm wondering why the CDC didn't start with the 2007 version and modify the contentious bits. At least the last few years and modification attempts have shown were the strength and weaknesses are.

[meltingpot2015]

There was no need to compare the new constitution to its 1997 or 2006 predecessors. Each of them had some weaknesses that led to a coup taking place.

Bold statement. To draw the conclusion that the outcome (the coup) was solely due to weaknesses in a constitution. It may have been due to badly applying the constitutional principles, for example by a constitutional panel of judges. If the outcome of an election was declared null and void due to some "irregularities" at a few polling stations. Then you have to really question how the decision was arrived at. Of course, the decision of the Court cannot be disputed, that's binding.

So, it may not be all do with flaws of the previous constitution(s), it could be due to how judges apply the law.

Germany's and Japan's constitutions (in Germany's case - Basic Law - As it was intended as temporary, but has gone on to take root ) were both drafted with assistance from other countries. Thailand could do with some assistance, with at least one panel member from another country involved in the drafting process. Also, the draft(s) could be put through scrutiny by an international body, so if that body can "agree" (or agree with some critique) a draft charter that is later found to have flaws then they (that international organization) lose credibility.

Former Pheu Thai party-list MP Wattana Muangsuk countered that the draft stated that amendments to the basic principles of thecharter required two-thirds of Parliament, or 433 votes, and then the amendment bill must pass a public referendum, which makes amending the constitution almost impossible.

He has a point, Yes, there has been instances (examples) from other countries where a president, with a super-majority (in congress or parliament) has been able to amend the constitution, that has subsequently led to unfavourable outcomes (for the country).

By the way, does anyone know where we can download the draft charter?, or if it is available for download.

[heybruce]

So the 3 major issues which are causing contentious are not negotiable according to CDC Chairman, well that's just great.........

He is also advocating that we just accept it and can then modify it later, despite making it virtually impossible to do...

Sounds like this is going to end up in stalemate quick smart, which will need an appointed PM to resolve..............

Like I said above if proposed changes are in the interests of the Nation and all of its people then not so difficult to amend, you do realise how difficult it is to amend the constitution in USA Australia etc - they all have a similar if not more difficult process and it is designed that way to ensure that someone like Thaksin or PTP cannot abuse it just because they have a majority of seats - PTP did not represent all of the Thai people, in fact not even the majority

How you don't get this is beyond me

You really are on a whiskey diet, aren't you?

The charter is unacceptable as written. If it were flawless as written the difficulty in changing it wouldn't be an issue.

was the personal comment really necessary

anyway you said "The charter is unacceptable as written" in your opinion which you are entitled too, you speak for nobody else.

Thais that seem to be rejecting it are those that will be most affected by it which is understandable since it makes it more difficult for them to abuse power and corrupt and also forces a dose of accountability all of which is undeniably and badly needed here in Thailand - it still gets a solid thumbs up from me

Your the one who put "I'm on a whiskey diet, lost 3 days already" with your avatar.

I speak only for myself, but it seems a lot of people care about democracy--that kind of government where the people choose their leaders, not the elites. These are the people that are unhappy with the draft constitution.

As far as making it more difficult for people to abuse power; no one abuses power in Thailand more often and with greater impunity than the generals. How does this constitution make it more difficult for them to continue their routine abuse of power? What accountability is forced on the military?

[smedly]

Like I said above if proposed changes are in the interests of the Nation and all of its people then not so difficult to amend, you do realise how difficult it is to amend the constitution in USA Australia etc - they all have a similar if not more difficult process and it is designed that way to ensure that someone like Thaksin or PTP cannot abuse it just because they have a majority of seats - PTP did not represent all of the Thai people, in fact not even the majority

How you don't get this is beyond me

You really are on a whiskey diet, aren't you?

The charter is unacceptable as written. If it were flawless as written the difficulty in changing it wouldn't be an issue.

was the personal comment really necessary

anyway you said "The charter is unacceptable as written" in your opinion which you are entitled too, you speak for nobody else.

Thais that seem to be rejecting it are those that will be most affected by it which is understandable since it makes it more difficult for them to abuse power and corrupt and also forces a dose of accountability all of which is undeniably and badly needed here in Thailand - it still gets a solid thumbs up from me

Your the one who put "I'm on a whiskey diet, lost 3 days already" with your avatar.

I speak only for myself, but it seems a lot of people care about democracy--that kind of government where the people choose their leaders, not the elites. These are the people that are unhappy with the draft constitution.

As far as making it more difficult for people to abuse power; no one abuses power in Thailand more often and with greater impunity than the generals. How does this constitution make it more difficult for them to continue their routine abuse of power? What accountability is forced on the military?

really, well I have to disagree .....up to me, you are actually one of the prolific posters here that in my opinion has questionable motives, I wonder who you really are lol

[rubl]

You really are on a whiskey diet, aren't you?

The charter is unacceptable as written. If it were flawless as written the difficulty in changing it wouldn't be an issue.

was the personal comment really necessary

anyway you said "The charter is unacceptable as written" in your opinion which you are entitled too, you speak for nobody else.

Thais that seem to be rejecting it are those that will be most affected by it which is understandable since it makes it more difficult for them to abuse power and corrupt and also forces a dose of accountability all of which is undeniably and badly needed here in Thailand - it still gets a solid thumbs up from me

Your the one who put "I'm on a whiskey diet, lost 3 days already" with your avatar.

I speak only for myself, but it seems a lot of people care about democracy--that kind of government where the people choose their leaders, not the elites. These are the people that are unhappy with the draft constitution.

As far as making it more difficult for people to abuse power; no one abuses power in Thailand more often and with greater impunity than the generals. How does this constitution make it more difficult for them to continue their routine abuse of power? What accountability is forced on the military?

really, well I have to disagree .....up to me, you are actually one of the prolific posters here that in my opinion has questionable motives, I wonder who you really are lol

A bit more positive please, my dear Smeds. Brucy probably comes from a country which as fully functioning democracy no longer requires his professional assistance. It would seem Brucy has now adopted Thailand.

Lucky Thailand

[wowfactor10]

Thailand adios

[heybruce]

You really are on a whiskey diet, aren't you?

The charter is unacceptable as written. If it were flawless as written the difficulty in changing it wouldn't be an issue.

was the personal comment really necessary

anyway you said "The charter is unacceptable as written" in your opinion which you are entitled too, you speak for nobody else.

Thais that seem to be rejecting it are those that will be most affected by it which is understandable since it makes it more difficult for them to abuse power and corrupt and also forces a dose of accountability all of which is undeniably and badly needed here in Thailand - it still gets a solid thumbs up from me

Your the one who put "I'm on a whiskey diet, lost 3 days already" with your avatar.

I speak only for myself, but it seems a lot of people care about democracy--that kind of government where the people choose their leaders, not the elites. These are the people that are unhappy with the draft constitution.

As far as making it more difficult for people to abuse power; no one abuses power in Thailand more often and with greater impunity than the generals. How does this constitution make it more difficult for them to continue their routine abuse of power? What accountability is forced on the military?

really, well I have to disagree .....up to me, you are actually one of the prolific posters here that in my opinion has questionable motives, I wonder who you really are lol

Disagree with what? Do you disagree that the military topples governments and suspends constitutions at will in Thailand? Do you disagree that there are no effective checks on the power of the Thai military?

I could just as easily wonder who you really are. Are you a troll working for the military to disparage democracy and glorify military rule? Are you in a position to benefit from military rule and hope to profit from their opaque governance and unchecked power? Why are you so supportive of an authoritarian military junta?

My motives are simple--I believe in free speech and democracy and don't like military rule. What do you believe in?

BTW, you have over a thousand more posts than me. If I am prolific then how do you describe yourself?

[smutcakes]

So the 3 major issues which are causing contentious are not negotiable according to CDC Chairman, well that's just great.........

He is also advocating that we just accept it and can then modify it later, despite making it virtually impossible to do...

Sounds like this is going to end up in stalemate quick smart, which will need an appointed PM to resolve..............

Like I said above if proposed changes are in the interests of the Nation and all of its people then not so difficult to amend, you do realise how difficult it is to amend the constitution in USA Australia etc - they all have a similar if not more difficult process and it is designed that way to ensure that someone like Thaksin or PTP cannot abuse it just because they have a majority of seats - PTP did not represent all of the Thai people, in fact not even the majority

How you don't get this is beyond me

PTP might not of represented the majority, but they sure represented a hell of a lot more than these appointed pompous no-marks writing the current Constitution. What makes them so special that they can force a Constitution on 60 million people, telling all of them what they can and cannot do......It is just as much their country as everyone else's.

Nearly every Government has amended the Constitution in one way or another, and it has never been a problem. The fact you single out the PTP, when they were trying to make the Senate 100% elected is quite laughable!!!!

I expect the charter will be rejected in a referendum, not so much because people strongly disagree with it, but more because people despise being dictated to and told what they can and cannot do by these self important clowns.

[Acharn]

Certainly the amendment process makes it difficult to amend the Constitution. That's a feature, not a bug. I was surprised to notice that nobody mentioned that aside from the Constitution Court having the power to halt the amendment process, Article 44 does too. For the foreseeable future no change can be made which is not approved by whoever is the head of the National Council for Peace and Order. This is necessary to make sure changes do not affect the basic principles of the charter.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Acharn

[heybruce]

was the personal comment really necessary

anyway you said "The charter is unacceptable as written" in your opinion which you are entitled too, you speak for nobody else.

Thais that seem to be rejecting it are those that will be most affected by it which is understandable since it makes it more difficult for them to abuse power and corrupt and also forces a dose of accountability all of which is undeniably and badly needed here in Thailand - it still gets a solid thumbs up from me

Your the one who put "I'm on a whiskey diet, lost 3 days already" with your avatar.

I speak only for myself, but it seems a lot of people care about democracy--that kind of government where the people choose their leaders, not the elites. These are the people that are unhappy with the draft constitution.

As far as making it more difficult for people to abuse power; no one abuses power in Thailand more often and with greater impunity than the generals. How does this constitution make it more difficult for them to continue their routine abuse of power? What accountability is forced on the military?

really, well I have to disagree .....up to me, you are actually one of the prolific posters here that in my opinion has questionable motives, I wonder who you really are lol

A bit more positive please, my dear Smeds. Brucy probably comes from a country which as fully functioning democracy no longer requires his professional assistance. It would seem Brucy has now adopted Thailand.

Lucky Thailand

"professional assistance"? No, but I can tell the difference between a military junta that seizes power and an elected government. I prefer the elected government, no matter how flawed and how foolish I think the voters choice.

[smedly]

Your the one who put "I'm on a whiskey diet, lost 3 days already" with your avatar.

I speak only for myself, but it seems a lot of people care about democracy--that kind of government where the people choose their leaders, not the elites. These are the people that are unhappy with the draft constitution.

As far as making it more difficult for people to abuse power; no one abuses power in Thailand more often and with greater impunity than the generals. How does this constitution make it more difficult for them to continue their routine abuse of power? What accountability is forced on the military?

really, well I have to disagree .....up to me, you are actually one of the prolific posters here that in my opinion has questionable motives, I wonder who you really are lol

A bit more positive please, my dear Smeds. Brucy probably comes from a country which as fully functioning democracy no longer requires his professional assistance. It would seem Brucy has now adopted Thailand.

Lucky Thailand

"professional assistance"? No, but I can tell the difference between a military junta that seizes power and an elected government. I prefer the elected government, no matter how flawed and how foolish I think the voters choice.

well yes you would think like that, you are a supporter of violence terrorists and murder as a means to an end - fortunately there are not too many think like that and the Thai people in general are recently wise to it also, there are political reforms taking place whether you like it or not, just maybe next time the Thai people will vote people into office that can actually govern the country instead of trying to rape it dry and feed your bosses agenda, you in my opinion are a very devious person with equally devious motives, you posting on this forum is very focused on one thing - a red terrorist Thaksin agenda, I however post on many threads unrelated to politics - your agenda is very clear

[heybruce]

really, well I have to disagree .....up to me, you are actually one of the prolific posters here that in my opinion has questionable motives, I wonder who you really are lol

A bit more positive please, my dear Smeds. Brucy probably comes from a country which as fully functioning democracy no longer requires his professional assistance. It would seem Brucy has now adopted Thailand.

Lucky Thailand

"professional assistance"? No, but I can tell the difference between a military junta that seizes power and an elected government. I prefer the elected government, no matter how flawed and how foolish I think the voters choice.

well yes you would think like that, you are a supporter of violence terrorists and murder as a means to an end - fortunately there are not too many think like that and the Thai people in general are recently wise to it also, there are political reforms taking place whether you like it or not, just maybe next time the Thai people will vote people into office that can actually govern the country instead of trying to rape it dry and feed your bosses agenda, you in my opinion are a very devious person with equally devious motives, you posting on this forum is very focused on one thing - a red terrorist Thaksin agenda, I however post on many threads unrelated to politics - your agenda is very clear

"you posting on this forum is very focused on one thing - a red terrorist Thaksin agenda"

Right, anyone who doesn't support a military junta that came to power by toppling an elected government and rules through censorship, detention without trial, and unchecked power must be a supporter of terrorism.

Is your mind really so closed that you can't believe a person prefers the uncertain outcome of democratic elections to military rule?