Cannabis Extracts Face Stricter Controls Amid Regulatory Shift

[webfact]

NOW 26'S "26TH HOUR"
We need a coalition govt: Anek

KEY CDC MEMBER EXTOLS VIRTUES OF THE 'GRAND DESIGN'

BANGKOK: -- WHILE THE CHARTER drafters were busy finishing the document before officially handing it over to the National Reform Council (NRC) on Saturday for further studying ahead of the NRC's September 6 vote, a "grand design" for the country's reform, reconciliation and revitalising democracy has also been hatched.

It centres on the formation of a "reconciliation government for reform" and the National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Committee. They would be tasked with helping to repair the deep divisions - new ideas that have drawn criticism due to the belief that the |bodies may operate "outside the |democratic system".

Anek Laothamatas is among those promoting the ideas, in his capacity as a Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) member supervising the drafting of the reform and reconciliation chapter, and as the chairman of the NRC's reconciliation studies committee. Anek spoke to Thepchai Yong, editor-in-chief of Nation Multimedia Group, on NOW 26's "26th Hour" programme. The interview airs tonight at 10.30pm. Here is an excerpt.

Q: IF A RECONCILIATION GOVERNMENT FOR REFORM CAN BE FORMED IN THE FUTURE, WHAT WOULD IT BE LIKE?

A: If we can form such a government, it's highly likely that the government would be a grand coalition, under which two big parties come and join hands to form the government, plus some small and medium-sized parties. As this form of government needs about four-fifths of the vote from the MPs [to endorse it], it would be almost impossible for them to reject sitting in the government together.

Q: IS THAT BECAUSE YOU FEAR THINGS WILL GO BACK TO SQUARE ONE? LIKE AFTER AN ELECTION, TWO BIG PARTIES WILL FORM THE GOVERNMENT AND THE OPPOSITION. POLITICS WILL NOT CHANGE, AND THE CONFLICT WILL NOT DISAPPEAR?

A: Yes, that is what we fear. As you know, it has been like this for 10 years already. So, as charter drafters, we need to break this challenge. Actually, this form of government has been adopted in several countries, be they the Netherlands, Belgium, Northern Ireland, South Africa, Germany, and Malaysia.

Q: THEY HAD A SIMILAR PROBLEM TO US - A SEVERE POLITICAL CONFLICT?

A: Yes, correct. In countries where a conflict is deep or severe, they have developed what is called a consociational democracy, under which opposing parties learn together to help each other contain a conflict within the government they run - [they learn] to compromise and to reconcile.

Q: SO, IF THIS PROPOSAL IS PUSHED FORWARD, WE MAY SEE (DEMOCRAT PARTY LEADER) ABHISIT VEJJAJIVA AND KEY LEADERS OF THE PHEU THAI PARTY LIKE SURAPONG TOVICHAKCHAIKUL WORKING TOGETHER UNDER THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

A: It's possible, but it also depends on the politicians. They should act like statesmen too. No matter how good a constitution is written, it will become helpless if those using it are not [acting like proper].

What we will do is ask people [if they accept the idea].

Q: SO, THE QUESTION TO GO WITH THE PLANNED REFERENDUM WILL BE AS SIMPLE AS, "DO YOU AGREE WITH THE IDEA OF HAVING A RECONCILIATION GOVERNMENT FOR REFORM?"

A: Something like that.

Q: IF THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE AGREE WITH THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT, WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP FOR IT TO BE FORMED?

A: We may have to write a provisional clause [in the charter] to facilitate its formation, and a government of this type may last four or five years. Some people may ask, "Who will become prime minister? Is this a trick to get a military official to be prime minister?" I would answer that if a military official became prime minister, it is you [the MPs] who would vote for him or her. So, who would you blame, as you would be the ones who raised hands in support of him or her?

Actually, we have choices when dealing with the premiership.

Q: SOME PEOPLE MIGHT THINK OF A FIGURE WITH BARAMI [iNTEGRITY], AND AS SUCH, IT MAY BE THEIR VIEW THAT THIS KIND OF GOVERNMENT IS AN OPEN DOOR FOR AN "OUTSIDER" OR A MILITARY OFFICIAL TO BECOME PRIME MINISTER. THEY WOULD BE RIGHT TO VIEW IT IN SUCH A WAY, WOULDN'T THEY?

A: It's not wrong if they view it in such a way. We have not closed the door to any options. They are out there for them as choices. If you [the MPs] think that having an outsider to lead your government is the best choice, it's up to you. Compared with the previous system, that's truly a closed one, as it blocks you from having more choices. It's "only us" who can be prime minister. The "only us" or "only me" choice has caused us to argue with each other for over 10 years now. So, with this idea you have more options.

Q: FROM WHAT YOU HAVE EXPLAINED, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE WANT TO GET POLITICIANS TO BE MORE RESPONSIBLE?

A: Yes, it does.

Q: NOT LIKE LETTING THEM WRITE THE RULES AND PLAY WITH THEM AS THEY WISH? BUT FROM NOW ON, WITH THIS IDEA, POLITICIANS WILL HAVE A COMMITMENT TO RESOLVE THE COUNTRY'S PROBLEM?

A: Yes, they will.

Apart from the government, there will also be the National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Committee. It will be composed of 23 prominent figures including the prime minister, military (leaders) and police chiefs, plus specialists.

With the NSRRC's standing, it's highly likely the government has to comply with the body's directives. The committee [NSRRC] will also have a special power to intervene or cease the reform or reconciliation process if they have a problem. This will be further discussed, but such power will be ultimate.

Q: NOW WE HAVE THE GOVERNMENT AND THE NSRRC. SO, WITH THESE BODIES, IT SEEMS WE WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE COUNTRY, BY WORKING ON BOTH REFORM AND RECONCILIATION? I MEAN, IF WE HAVE A TRUE INTENTION TOO?

A: It means that we will not place hopes on politicians to work on reform and reconciliation any more. It will no longer be up to their mercy or willingness to pursue the work as we will have the new mechanisms to help drive the work.

Q: YOUR COMMITTEE CANNOT SEE ANY OTHER WAYS TO ACHIEVE REFORM, RECONCILIATION?

A: No, we cannot. If you can see that, please inform us too [he laughed].

Q: BUT YOU HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR NEARLY A YEAR. CAN YOU NOT REALLY SEE A LIGHT AT THE END OF A TUNNEL?

A: What we have managed to see that a bit with the referendum. I view this approach as excellent. We didn't think of it before. When we had talked to some politicians and they responded with strong opposition, said "No we don't want this [the coalition government]", I can say that I couldn't figure out anything more. But our chair Borwornsak said: "Well, let's ask the people." I think this is a very innovative of the charter drafting this time.

Q: DO YOU THINK YOU WILL BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN ALL THESE THINGS, ESPECIALLY THE IDEA OF THE RECONCILIATION GOVERNMENT, TO CONVINCE PEOPLE TO ACCEPT IT AND NOT VIEW THIS AS AN ATTEMPT TO PROLONG THE POWER OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR PEACE AND ORDER?

A: It's not, because it will be here for only four or five years. And I think the period will not allow the military government to prolong its power or cover up itself. Such a period is over.

The charter drafting this time is difficult because we are not drafting the charter to be just democratic, but we have to address reform and reconciliation, and even forced reform and reconciliation [he laughed]. In addition, we have to think of a transitional period, not just having an election and everything is back to square one.

Q: IT'S NOT JUST WRITING THE CHARTER - THAT [ALONE] WOULD NOT HELP, RIGHT?

A: No. No, it's not.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/We-need-a-coalition-govt-Anek-30267274.html

-- The Nation 2015-08-24

[EricBerg]

_{Indeed some sort of national unity government would be ideal for the Kingdom. The differences are too deep however. And then there still is the big bad guy in the background who will actively block any reconciliation if it doesn't include a full amnesty for him personally. Real progress can only be made when he is completely out of the picture.}

[Seastallion]

With respect (cough cough), it's the worst idea ever.

All you'd achieve is for the coalition to spend their time elbowing their way to the trough, fighting amongst themselves, and with no effective Opposition, it would be a free-for-all.

Nothing would get done unless it was after backroom deals. "We'll pass this, because my uncles has interests in the milti-billion baht project, and we'll pass that, because your brother will benefit with a multi-billion baht contract..OK?" "Yeah, OK."

No serious things good for the country will be looked at.

Parliamentary systems only work when there is an effective Opposition.

Aesop: "He who tries to please everybody, pleases nobody".

[elgordo38]

With respect (cough cough), it's the worst idea ever.

All you'd achieve is for the coalition to spend their time elbowing their way to the trough, fighting amongst themselves, and with no effective Opposition, it would be a free-for-all.

Nothing would get done unless it was after backroom deals. "We'll pass this, because my uncles has interests in the milti-billion baht project, and we'll pass that, because your brother will benefit with a multi-billion baht contract..OK?" "Yeah, OK."

No serious things good for the country will be looked at.

Parliamentary systems only work when there is an effective Opposition.

Aesop: "He who tries to please everybody, pleases nobody".

Its no different in the Western world. Politicians are the mini me in the pockets of big business.

[Thai at Heart]

They need parties to create their own ideologies beyond 95% of mps being in the game to feather their own pocket. They must smash all corruption to form functioning democracy. That of course needs a functioning legal system. When was the last white collar conviction for being on the take?

[tigermonkey]

It all sounds so very idealistic. A united, coalition government which is elected by the people from politicians who all have the same party platform - compromise for reconciliation. All of this is guided and controlled by the carefully selected ( by whom we are not sure ) members of the NSRCC. All bliss and happiness. It does however sound hauntingly similar to the government of our big brother to the north.

[hugh2121]

_{Indeed some sort of national unity government would be ideal for the Kingdom. The differences are too deep however. And then there still is the big bad guy in the background who will actively block any reconciliation if it doesn't include a full amnesty for him personally. Real progress can only be made when he is completely out of the picture.}

Give over for **** sake. I've read too much of this same same drivel already. Don't you have any other records to play?