Draft constitution still shrouded in doubt

[webfact]

Draft constitution still shrouded in doubt
NITIPOL KIRAVANICH
THE NATION

KEY AGENCIES REMAIN AT LOGGERHEADS AS WORK LOOMS ON AMENDMENTS

BANGKOK: -- AS THE DEBATE ABOUT amendments continues, the charter's drafters and those who approve the draft constitution are now at loggerheads. That leaves political scientists looking out for what the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) should do.

Last month saw the debating and scrutinising process by the National Reform Council (NRC), with many heated discussions on how the newly drafted charter should be altered. But any amendments of the charter articles will depend on the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC).

Soon the new Constitution draft will reach its approval stage from the reformers. If the draft does not pass, the drafting process will have to start again from scratch - meaning both CDC and NRC will be dissolved as stipulated in the 2014 Provisional Constitution.

Attasit Pankaew, a political scientist and a professor at Thammsat University, said the biggest issue for the new Constitution was with the public's understanding.

"Right now we merely know that the charter will or will not be accepted by reformers. A referendum is still uncertain, while the content and principles of the charter were not explained to us," he stressed.

The weakness of this charter at the moment is that the information in the draft is not reaching the community, he added.

Attasit cited the perceptions towards the charter that are divided into two groups: one represents the people who support the draft and pick and choose the information for their own audiences; while the other group opposes the draft and is doing the same thing.

Thus, the professor suggested that the informing process be done openly for both supporters and opponents.

Asked to comment on this new charter's legitimacy, Attasit said the people should certainly be involved as the draft did not come from an election or was bound to the people. But that's the situation and we have to look beyond the issues.

One certain and final way to promote better legitimacy was through a referendum.

Attasit also voiced concern about political interest groups, explaining that these groups could make Thai politics unstable because anyone could be a candidate without restrictions.

Asked whether there was a tendency for this draft to be accepted by reformers, Attasit said it might pass because the "five rivers" [junta appointed agencies - the NCPO, Cabinet, National Legislative Assembly (NLA), CDC and NRC] hold meetings regularly.

A five rivers meeting was where all junta-appointed organisations discussed national matters, the political scientist explained.

He also said if the drafters made amendments according to the reformers proposals, the draft could be approved. According to his understanding, the reason the CDC was not forwarding the charter draft to the public could mean they were open to altering the articles and principles.

Sirote Klampaiboon, another independent professor, opined that the real issue of this draft was starting from the wrong idea, which had become the wrong principle of the draft.

"CDC had the wrong perception from the start. They are designing a coalition government with the thought that Thai political conflicts result from Parliamentary dictatorship - ideas which are issues in the draft itself," said Sirote, who is also a political scientist.

He said this conclusion then led to drafting the Constitution to the wrong objectives.

Regarding the content of the draft, Sirote said individuals who come from the people, or represent their people, have less power. Images of democracy in this charter were not imprinted in it.

On the matter of whether he thought the new charter would be accepted by the NRC, he said that if it does not pass and the drafting process goes back to square one, the new drafting committee should be elected by the people to protect relations between drafters and the people.

Sirote also stressed where there were no relations between the Constitution and the people - a further problem would be the question of where the legitimacy of the charter lay. CDC member Jade Donavanik said he was optimistic that the committee would accommodate major amendment proposals. He added that even if there was to be no referendum, people would still accept it as they want the country to return to democracy quickly.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Draft-constitution-still-shrouded-in-doubt-30259785.html


-- The Nation 2015-05-11

[NongKhaiKid]

What's the doubt, could it be " I doubt this will be accepted in a referendum so we force it through " ?

Now, who in authority would say such a thing ?

[Toscano]

" Jade Donavanik said he was optimistic that the committee would accommodate major amendment proposals.

He added that even if there was to be no referendum,people would still accept it as they want the country to return to democracy quickly."

The 2007 constitution was accepted because people wanted a general election .

In the case of the present proposed constitution , I don't think the people will accept it .

A general election would not offer voting for a free democratic government by the winning party as before . The proposed future

government would remain much the same as the present dictatorship ; better to let the military continue government as now .

Edited May 11, 2015 by Toscano

[FangFerang]

I think the lack of transparency is deliberate, and the CDC and NLA will have a dissolution each which results in a long-delayed election.

After all, as Suthep says, the PM does....."And on Saturday he declred "I welcome the PM to stay for five years."

And speaking of Suthep, did anyone else notice (in the same artic;e) his careful phrases in the news? He keeps saying "I will never seek election", but in light of an appointed Senate he will declare --

"I am being called to duty and I must respond".

Yeah. Right.

[Srikcir]

" Jade Donavanik said he was optimistic that the committee would accommodate major amendment proposals.

He added that even if there was to be no referendum,people would still accept it as they want the country to return to democracy quickly."

The 2007 constitution was accepted because people wanted a general election .

In the case of the present proposed constitution , I don't think the people will accept it .

A general election would not offer voting for a free democratic government by the winning party as before . The proposed future

government would remain much the same as the present dictatorship ; better to let the military continue government as now .

The 2007 Constitution was put before a referendum preceding elections. Only 51% of the electorate supported it and that should have sent a message that it was not viable. No small wonder then that the elected government tried subsequently to amend it by means provided for in the constitution and was overthrown by the military.

The draft 2015 constitution not only needs to be approved by a referendum but the public vote should be a super majority, ie., 70%.

[Srikcir]

Whether the key Junta-clone agencies remain at “loggerheads” or reconcile their differences are IRRELEVANT.

The draft 2015 constitution is immaterial without an overwhelming approval from a public referendum of ALL Thais eligible to vote (ie., pursuant to the 2007 Constitution).

The Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand, March 11, 2015:

Both former cabinet ministers Kasit Piromya of the Democrat Party, and Chaturon Chaisang and Pongthep Thepkanjana of the Puea Thai Party “were not just skeptical, but deeply pessimistic that a system which was being evolved with little or no consultation with the public, and may not even be put to a referendum, would satisfy the Thai people.” These two parties delivered 95% of the electoral vote in the 2011 election.

Mr. Pongthep, a lawyer and former judge, and like Mr. Chaturon, a former deputy prime minister, said “the draft constitution showed no trust in people or respect for them.”

Mr. Kasit, a former Ambassador to Japan, Germany and Washington, who joined protests against the former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his direct or proxy governments in 2006, 2008 and 2014 said, “The minority acting on behalf of the masses is totalitarian and fascist.” “You have to trust in the good sense of the people”

Let’s see if Prayut as a democratic soldier is willing to surrender his trust to a real democratic process.

[phoenixdoglover]

The self appointed PM has said he does not have the power to order a referendum. He's being disingenuous at best.

At some point, the self appointed PM will be expected to explain "What Happens Next". I predict a Friday evening chat full of cognitive dissonance, and a heavy appeal for patriotic duty.

Dr. Prayut's Castor Oil Remedy on sale soon.