Thai talk: What's the fuss over 'citizens' and 'people' in the new charter?

[webfact]

THAI TALK
What's the fuss over 'citizens' and 'people' in the new charter?
Suthichai Yoon
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Does it really matter whether the new constitution uses the term "citizens" instead of "the people" or "persons"? For chief charter writer Borwornsak Uwanno, the answer is, yes, it's crucial. In fact, it's the very heart of the new constitution.

But critics in the Cabinet and National Legislative Assembly (NLA) have taken him to task for using "polamuang" (citizens) instead of "bukkon" (persons). In previous charters, the term "prachachon" (people) was the all-purpose expression used, and it never triggered controversy.

Borwornsak is dead serious about the "innovativeness" of the new charter being drawn up by a committee of 36 "wise men" appointed by the powers-that-be. "People" or "persons" is simply too general and vague. But "citizens" makes a big, make-or-break difference.

"Polamuang", he insists, underscores the "empowerment" of Thais who must, under the new charter, be considered the "most powerful" voice in the new political landscape - if the new exercise is to achieve its noble goals, that is.

The underlying theme of the new constitution, according to members of the Constitution Drafting Committee, is that politicians must finally come under the control of the "citizens". They claim that democracy in Thailand has failed so far because one charter after another has not accorded sufficient legal power to the people.

But the term "people", they claim, isn't strong enough to underline the fact that members of society and eligible voters must now claim their rightful place in the political landscape. Where "people" have failed, "citizens" must step in to fill the gap.

Advocates of this concept may have borrowed the idea from the term "active citizenship", a doctrine that stipulates that an active citizen must have clear roles in and responsibilities to society and the environment.

The charter drafters were probably drawn to the conclusion that the Thai people have over the past decade been enfeebled by so much populism in national politics that they have become "tools" of the country rather than its "masters". In other words, instead of being "empowered", the electorate have been deprived of the ability to think for themselves. They have been led by the nose by political forces, which used populist policies to ensnare them in the "vulnerability trap".

Borwornsak and his fellow charter writers have vowed to return power to the people by incorporating clauses in the constitution that will put "citizens" above "politicians", instead of the other way round. But some members of the National Reform Council, NLA and the Cabinet have found "citizens" an unfamiliar concept that conveys a new and perhaps too radical message. They want to go back to the original "people" or "persons" to describe members of society, including the 47 million eligible voters out of a total population of about 67 million.

Borwornsak has stood his ground. The use of the word "citizens", he said, was in no way part of political rhetoric. His choice of words was, he insisted, "intentionally made to make sure that the Thai people know that they have the inherent right to dictate the future of the country, and are not just voters for whom democracy lasts only the two minutes it takes in the polling booth to mark the ballot on election day."

But after all is said and done, the debate over "active citizenship" may end up being an exercise in futility. The ultimate test of the new charter won't be the language that is used. And nor will its success or failure be determined by a national referendum, if one is finally conducted.

The new document governing national politics will be judged by whether the Thai people in general feel it's time to take charge of their destiny, instead of allowing politicians to play their own dirty games. The new charter can describe them as "citizens" or "people" or "individuals", but if the rightful owners of the nation can't, or refuse to, make their voices heard, then both sides of the debate will end up losers anyway.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Whats-the-fuss-over-citizens-and-people-in-the-new-30261535.html


-- The Nation 2015-06-04

[Crossy]

This new charter is in serious danger of turning into a camel (a horse designed by a committee)

[catterwell]

I'd translate the three terms as "citizens", "subjects" and "individuals". Each term is used in different contexts so that, in some, someone is an "individual" and not a "citizen", which becomes very confusing. This is no accident and very much reflects Borwornsak's style of writing. I've no objection to "citizen" (although the translation into Thai is a tad clumsy), but why not stick to a single term throughout?

[Seastallion]

"Borwornsak has stood his ground. The use of the word "citizens", he said, was in no way part of political rhetoric. His choice of words was, he insisted, "intentionally made to make sure that the Thai people know that they have the inherent right to dictate the future of the country, and are not just voters for whom democracy lasts only the two minutes it takes in the polling booth to mark the ballot on election day.""

Sounds good. Stand your ground Khun Borwornsak.

[dageurreotype]

Shouldn't they be referred to as 'subjects'? ..

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

I'd translate the three terms as "citizens", "subjects" and "individuals". Each term is used in different contexts so that, in some, someone is an "individual" and not a "citizen", which becomes very confusing. This is no accident and very much reflects Borwornsak's style of writing. I've no objection to "citizen" (although the translation into Thai is a tad clumsy), but why not stick to a single term throughout?

Because if you look deeper into the issue you will find that having different terms will allow them to keep certain people out of politics. If you are not an active citizen you will not be able to stand for election, the question is who will decide you are an active citizen or not. The other problem in the draft is that there are a difference made between Thai citizens based on their education, experience and skills. This can't happen as all citizens in the eye of the constitution must be equal, without equality in the constitution there can't be equal justice and rule of law.

[FangFerang]

When you want to slow the soup, dice all the ingredients into icing-sugar sized granules, with a dull butter knife. In this way, you can faithfully serve the next century (in the next century).

[Jonmarleesco]

'Borwornsak and his fellow charter writers have vowed to return power to the people by incorporating clauses in the constitution that will put "citizens" above "politicians" ...' So, is it their intention to return power to the people, or to the citizens?

[harrry]

The constitution gives rights and responsiblities.

If citizen is used (as the US does) it enables them to avoid their responsibilites to those other people in their country. It means, as in the US a non citizen is not covered by things like the Disabilities act.

[Srikcir]

Maybe "serfs" might be more appropriate if Thailand is going to revert back into a feudal society.

I suggest as a matter of reconciliation that TWO constitutions be drafted. One for the royalists ("We the People") and one for everyone else ("You the Other People"). There would be a separate referendum for each. The NCPO will appoint those who can vote for the WTP and the remainder can vote for the WOP. Any conflicts between the two would be resolved by an unelected committee appointed by the NCPO.

One Thailand - two States of mind.

[rubl]

Maybe "serfs" might be more appropriate if Thailand is going to revert back into a feudal society.

I suggest as a matter of reconciliation that TWO constitutions be drafted. One for the royalists ("We the People") and one for everyone else ("You the Other People"). There would be a separate referendum for each. The NCPO will appoint those who can vote for the WTP and the remainder can vote for the WOP. Any conflicts between the two would be resolved by an unelected committee appointed by the NCPO.

One Thailand - two States of mind.

Interesting proposal. Let me first check with former Dept. PM Pol. Captain Chalerm who wrote a constitution just for the fun of it a few years ago.