Thai Analysis: Charter drafting committee faces difficult challenges over proposed amendments

[webfact]

ANALYSIS
Charter drafting committee faces difficult challenges over proposed amendments
NITIPOL KIRAVANICH
THE NATION

BANGKOK: - REVISIONS to the draft charter by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) later this week will inevitably affect some key points. To begin with, the drafters will find it tough to revise certain clauses without ruining the principles they were drafted under.

They have received amendment proposals from agencies such as the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), the National Reform Council (NRC) and the Cabinet, and some of these proposals contradict one another.

One of the major principles up for debate is that of an "outsider", non-MP prime minister. The CDC draft stipulates that the PM does not have to be a member of the House of Representatives, but should be able to attain votes from at least two-thirds of all MPs to secure the position.

Key NRC members, such as the chairman of the political reform panel, Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, and legal and justice reform panel chairman Seree Suwanphanont, have opposed the idea of letting an outsider become prime minister, but the NLA and Cabinet appear to be supporting this clause.

If the drafters drop the outsider-PM clause as proposed by the key reformers, then their original intention of introducing a way out of a political impasse will be erased. However, if they stand their ground on the issue, it could raise chances of the NRC rejecting the charter draft when it votes in September.

How they deal with this issue is a key challenge for drafters. An outsider PM needs the authority to propose bills and dissolve the House, as stated in the draft charter's Articles 181 and 182. These powers would be an "important weapon" for an unelected PM, who has no guaranteed support from coalition parties.

Article 181 says that the prime minister can seek a vote of confidence from the House of Representatives, but if the House returns a "no confidence" vote, then the PM can dissolve the Parliament. Article 182 grants the PM the authority to propose important bills. If MPs do not issue a no-confidence vote within 48 hours, these bills will be deemed as approved by the House.

The NRC and the Cabinet oppose these articles. The reformers are against having an outsider PM, so their opposition to the articles is obvious, but the Cabinet's position seems quite irrational in that it is backing an outsider PM, but disagrees with him or her being given the power to propose bills.

Attasit Pankaew, a political scientist from Thammasat University, said an outsider PM might find it tough to control a coalition government as well as find it extremely difficult to propose any bills, so Articles 181 and 182 might prove to be necessary.

However, he said, the CDC had drafted the charter in a systematic manner and altering or removing one article might result in the amendment or removal of another. For instance, he said, if the CDC eliminated the clause on having an outsider PM, it would also have to remove the two articles and vice versa.

Other fiercely debated topics are the MMP (mixed-member proportional representation) electoral system, the open-list system that gives voters a greater say in the order |of representatives in a party list, and the provision that allows political-interest groups to participate in |the parliamentary system.

The Cabinet suggested that the previous electoral system be used instead of MMP, while the NRC strongly disagrees with the open-list system.

Attasit said that if the CDC were to amend the clauses on the MMP and open-list system, it would have to eliminate the role of political-interest groups as well, and this also would not bring in the political system the drafters want to introduce. He argued that if Thailand wants a strong government, it certainly could not adopt the MMP system, because it would only lead to a coalition.

Hence no matter how the CDC amends the charter, it will surely affect their principles. Plus, the drafters cannot favour one proposal over another.

Charter revisions will be made on an article-by-article basis this week. Sources within the CDC have said that they expect the panel to call the NRC and the Cabinet in for a meeting after the amendments are completed so it can explain the reasons behind why they have either eliminated and altered some articles or left certain clauses as they are.

LIKELY CHANGES IN THE DRAFT CHARTER

ALTERATIONS

Article 181 would be amended to allow the opposition to launch a no-confidence debate in the same Parliament session;

Article 182, which grants the premier the authority to pass important bills, would be eliminated.

Political interest groups would not be allowed to run in the elections;

The open-list in the party-list system would be dropped;

Constituency MPs would be increased from 250 to 300 and party-list MPs cut from 200 to 150;

National Ethics Committee would be eliminated;

A new election organising committee would not be set up;

The Senate's authority would be reduced;

Office of Ombudsman and National Human Rights Commission would be kept separate;

Reconciliation Committee would be merged with the Strategic Reform Committee.

POINTS THAT WOULD BE MAINTAINED

Mixed-member proportional electoral system;

Option of having an outsider PM, but this non-MP premier must win the vote of two-thirds of all MPs.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Charter-drafting-committee-faces-difficult-challen-30262873.html

-- The Nation 2015-06-23

[Bannum opinions]

"..... the drafters will find it tough to revise certain clauses without ruining the principles they were drafted under"

"Principles"?..........It would be interesting to see them......Although the term "ideology" may be better suited......Regardless, these guys seem to be politically tone-deaf......They are clearly on one side of the political divide, making this "Their" constitution..........There is even a mention of some stuff being "Fiercely debated"......Obviously, a debate within the family..........I hope that "fierce debate" they reference, is extended to the pre-referendum political space without restrictions and politically balanced beyond themselves........ Even though it may upset their 'calmness" as they mentioned recently. Alternative opinions are seen by these people as an attack on the nation, as the anti-democrats aggrandizingly and arrogantly see themselves. An attack by those who are not enlightened as the anti-democrats are in their view. Or people who should be categorized out of electoral eligibility if they had their way.

"the provision that allows political-interest groups to participate in |the parliamentary system"

This is a scary one. Parliamentary political groups with no electoral legitimacy........The anti-democrats response would be, "You have a problem with that?

Not only are so-called Independent Agencies with quasi legal underpinnings that seek to legitimize themselves, and who don't act independently at all - The NACC and Election Commission for example, never mind the morality squad.....but the anti-democrats want to pile it on. They will create all kinds of Interest groups, with lofty sounding titles, and initials, creating a facade that these groups have existed for a long time. I am thinking of the Lumpini PDRC for example, although I don't recall what PDRC stood for, other than the anti-democrat side of things....I recall another Interest group the anti-democrats created one time to protest in front of the elected Parliament...A "Dog Lovers" group if you can imagine...They will have a "mother's group" against this or that...... How can nice people argue against that.

Anyway, fun to watch for political junkies how subterfuge and phony stuff equates to political action in the view of some..

Edited June 23, 2015 by Bannum opinions

[Bannum opinions]

"Political interest groups would not be allowed to run in the elections"

The less radical elements even realize, this is absurd.

No amount of anti-democrat segmentation of their political base, giving them fancy titles and initials, and then passing them off as independent and unaffiliated political interest groups, will work. This has been their MO in the past.

I guess their arrogance has limits after all.....Normally they think they can fabricate any political whims and nonsense, and think those of lesser station are gullible enough to buy into that subterfuge.

The most notable one IMHO, is the self-serving notion of Thailand being so unique, it requires customized Democratic practices.

Besides, the line between "interest groups" and "Political interest groups" is fine indeed.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Bannum opinions

[phoenixdoglover]

If the drafters drop the outsider-PM clause as proposed by the key reformers, then their original intention of introducing a way out of a political impasse will be erased.

This one is easily fixed. Set a strict time frame for selection of a PM by parliament. The rule would be simple: if a new PM is not elected by Parliament within 20 days according to the regular procedure for election, then Parliament shall be dissolved, a caretaker government shall come into force, and parliamentary elections shall be held within 90 days.

With such a rule in place, a new PM would be elected from Parliament;the squabbling factions would be forced to compromise.

Edited June 23, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[phoenixdoglover]

Article 181 says that the prime minister can seek a vote of confidence from the House of Representatives, but if the House returns a "no confidence" vote, then the PM can dissolve the Parliament. Article 182 grants the PM the authority to propose important bills. If MPs do not issue a no-confidence vote within 48 hours, these bills will be deemed as approved by the House

These two sections are so contrary to a democratic form of government, they should be eliminated.

Article 181 reminds me of the old coin toss joke:

Heads, I win!

Tails, you lose!

Edited June 23, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[Srikcir]

Usually a constitution brings unity to a nation. The Junta has managed to bring disunity.

The Junta wants to constitutionalize future coups. with its new constitution. It guarantees that the Thai people will NEVER own their own sovereingty. Using a contrived Rule of Law, the military would effectively establish a feudal sovereignty over the nation. No longer would the generals have to engage in repeatedly overthrowing governments, abolishing constitutions, and threatening a nation.

Maybe the Thai people have decided for once not to give the military carte blanche over their rights and liberties. But there will have to be more action beyond mere referendums by the Thai people to change the culture of military suppression.

[tbthailand]

One of the major principles up for debate is that of an "outsider", non-MP prime minister. The CDC draft stipulates that the PM does not have to be a member of the House of Representatives, but should be able to attain votes from at least two-thirds of all MPs to secure the position.

it will be so much easier for Prayut to buy the votes of 2/3 of the chamber ... even if Thaksin buys all of Isaan...

check and mate... game over for Thaksin.