Thai editorial: Politicians also TO BLAME for charter chopping

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
Politicians also TO BLAME for charter chopping

THAI LAWMAKERS HAVE TOLERATED AND IN SOME CASES EVEN ENCOURAGED THE POLITICAL VIOLENCE |AND CORRUPTION USED BY THE MILITARY AS AN EXCUSE TO SEIZE POWER

BANGKOK: -- The process of drafting of the new constitution has reached the revision stage. The Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) has received proposals from the Cabinet and the National Reform Council (NRC) as to what should be revised or dropped from its original draft.

The authors will now discuss what changes, if any, should be made to the document. Many of the drafters, particularly CDC chief Borwornsak Uwanno, have voiced opposition to changes suggested by politicians, suspicious that they seek simply to protect their own interests. Borwornsak went so far as to say that the new constitution was designed to serve all the people, not just a few thousand politicians.

However, many of the revisions suggested by government ministers and NRC members are similar to those proposed by politicians. These include a clause that would allow a non-parliamentarian prime minister, giving the prime minister power to issue special laws, and a complex new voting system.

The draft still has to pass several tests before it becomes our new constitution. These include a vote by the NRC on whether to endorse it, and then an expected national referendum.

If it passes into law, the charter will be the country's 20th since Thailand became a constitutional monarchy in 1932. The reason we have had so many constitutions is that they are abolished and rewritten each time the military seizes power in a coup. And Thailand has witnessed 13 successful coups in the modern era, more than any other country in the world.

Former prime minister Chavalit

Yongchaiyudh said recently that this latest constitution would likely meet the same fate and be torn up as soon as the next military takeover occurs.

In fact, politicians also share the blame in the scrapping of constitutions, particularly after the latest coups, in 2006 and last year. The run-up to each was marked by bloody political disputes that threatened to escalate into armed conflict. The military's intervention faced little opposition from the citizenry, but rather widespread relief that chaos had been averted.

Before staging a coup, the military has tended to wait until it has sufficient "excuses" and public support to stave off any strong opposition to its seizure of power. The rationale usually centres on a purported breakdown in public order that threatens the security and stability of the nation.

In order to prevent the next constitution from being torn up, we have to avoid the circumstances that would provide the military with excuses to stage yet another coup.

Politicians can do much in this regard. In a bid to win legitimacy for their action of ousting a democratically elected government, the military often cites rampant corruption in the administration, severe political violence, the authorities' inability to control the situation, and the risk of the country becoming a "failed state". In most cases, the coup-makers have succeeded in convincing the majority of citizens and thus gaining legitimacy.

If politicians made greater efforts to reduce the extent of corruption as well as political conflict and violence, they would effectively remove the opportunity for the military to claim that a coup is inevitable.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Politicians-also-TO-BLAME-for-charter-chopping-30261086.html


-- The Nation 2015-05-28

[noitom]

Continued Thai thrashing about.

[smedly]

good OP and IMO is a very accurate summary of what happens here - preventing it is an entirely different story

[Solomon]

"THE POLITICAL VIOLENCE AND CORRUPTION USED BY THE MILITARY AS AN EXCUSE TO SEIZE POWER"

"Before staging a coup, the military has tended to wait until it has sufficient "excuses" and public support to stave off any strong opposition to its seizure of power. The rationale usually centres on a purported breakdown in public order that threatens the security and stability of the nation".

In a bid to win legitimacy for their action of ousting a democratically elected government, the military often cites rampant corruption in the administration, severe political violence, the authorities' inability to control the situation, and the risk of the country becoming a "failed state".

These words are not said nearly enough, if they were, Thailand would not be in the sorry situation it now finds itself.

[SABloke]

deleted

Edited May 28, 2015 by SABloke

[Godders]

In fact, politicians also share the blame in the scrapping of constitutions, particularly after the latest coups, in 2006 and last year.

Well, at least the Thai people elected them and could kick them out. It's called democracy.

Of course, the longer the present administration retains its illegitimate grip on power, the more likely it becomes that the word democracy and the concept it represents will fade from the Thai public consciousness.

Come September 2016, assuming the election goalposts are not shifted yet again, many voters may well plump for the paternalistic devil they know rather than a political opposition being systematically silenced and demonised by the junta and its proponents in the mass media.

[Srikcir]

"politicians also share the blame in the scrapping of constitutions"

Constitutions scrapped by politicians - ZERO

Constitutions scrapped by coups - TWELVE

The content of this article - BALONEY

[EnglishJohn]

"THAI LAWMAKERS HAVE TOLERATED AND IN SOME CASES EVEN ENCOURAGED THE POLITICAL VIOLENCE |AND CORRUPTION USED BY THE MILITARY AS AN EXCUSE TO SEIZE POWER"

Yes : it's called giving them enough rope to hang themselves.

'Political Violence' means, of course, the murder and intimidation of peaceful protestors by government backed terrorists.

This was the only way a group as ruthless and dirty as Thaksin and his cronies were ever going to get booted out. Any other serious threat on a smaller scale would have met with a bootlace around the neck or a grenade through the front door.

The big problem in Thailand is that you simply cannot trust politicians to act in the interest of the people : they don't care a dam. What a sad testament to Thai society. And there are plenty more who admire people who managed to worm their way into those positions.

[ThaiUser]

Borwornsak went so far as to say that the new constitution was designed to serve all the people, not just a few thousand politicians.

It seems that Mr Borwornsak is making sure that the new constitution is serving his purpose and not all Thai people.

I have not heard or seen anything that would address the inequality that Thai women still face when compared with rights their male counterparts has been given.

There are many other points I could make when considering ideas that have been placed into the public domain when discussing the new constitution (I still have to see a draft of it yet) but the above point is one that has influenced my feelings about people that say the new constitution would cater for all Thais. In my view it only caters for half of the population and is written to enshrine the rights of the few against the demands of the many.

Edited May 28, 2015 by ThaiUser

[smedly]

Borwornsak went so far as to say that the new constitution was designed to serve all the people, not just a few thousand politicians.

It seems that Mr Borwornsak is making sure that the new constitution is serving his purpose and not all Thai people.

I have not heard or seen anything that would address the inequality that Thai women still face when compared with rights their male counterparts has been given.

There are many other points I could make when considering ideas that have been placed into the public domain when discussing the new constitution (I still have to see a draft of it yet) but the above point is one that has influenced my feelings about people that say the new constitution would cater for all Thais. In my view it only caters for half of the population and is written to enshrine the rights of the few against the demands of the many.

I have not seen heard or read anything that inhibits the equality of women - maybe you could enlighten us all as to how and were this exists and how anything in the constitution directly favours either women or men

[ThaiUser]

Borwornsak went so far as to say that the new constitution was designed to serve all the people, not just a few thousand politicians.

It seems that Mr Borwornsak is making sure that the new constitution is serving his purpose and not all Thai people.

I have not heard or seen anything that would address the inequality that Thai women still face when compared with rights their male counterparts has been given.

There are many other points I could make when considering ideas that have been placed into the public domain when discussing the new constitution (I still have to see a draft of it yet) but the above point is one that has influenced my feelings about people that say the new constitution would cater for all Thais. In my view it only caters for half of the population and is written to enshrine the rights of the few against the demands of the many.

I have not seen heard or read anything that inhibits the equality of women - maybe you could enlighten us all as to how and were this exists and how anything in the constitution directly favours either women or men

Coming across your comments from time to time I am not surprised. You seem to suffer from a disability that affects your hearing and reading ability but still doesn’t prevent you from writing nonsense.

Women in Thailand are not on equal footing with their male counterparts when it comes to property rights or family matters only to mention two of the sour points. The same problems western countries faced in the past and solved by placing articles into their constitutions that made sure that civil law, family law etc needed to be re-written.

Before you ask for an example to support my comment here is one country but if needed I can mention more.

Germany:

Art. 3 Abs. 2 GG (Article 3 Paragraph 2 German Constitution – Grund Gesetz) states: Männer und Frauen sind gleichberechtigt - Meaning men and women have equal rights.

When introduced into the German Constitution it forced the law makers to change family law and civil law (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) since many of these laws conflicted with the article in the constitution.

I think it would be a great idea to have a similar article in our new constitution since it would force law makers to change all other law books that still hold laws disadvantaging women. You might not agree with it but that is your prerogative.

Edited May 28, 2015 by ThaiUser