Thai experts see room for revision in controversial new draft charter

[webfact]

SPECIAL REPORT
Experts see room for revision in controversial new draft charter
WASAMON AUDJARINT,
PRAVIT ROJANAPHRUK,
PETCHANET PRATRUANGKRAI
THE NATION



NSRRC, SENATE APPOINTMENTS DRAW THE MOST FLAK FROM OBSERVERS, FOLLOWED BY THE LACK OF PROVISIONS FOR THE ECONOMY AND EDUCATION

BANGKOK: -- THE recently-released draft constitution contains a number of unique features that need to be assessed ahead of a proposed national referendum.

Political and academic heavyweights interviewed by The Nation have picked out the positives and the negatives of the controversial document.

Positive aspects include an attempt to turn political parties into truly mass-based institutions and a greater push toward decentralisation, while negative aspects include the National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Committee (NSRRC), which will have power over the elected government, the provision for an unelected prime minister, and the appointment of more than half of the senate.

Attasit Pankaew, a political scientist at Thammasat University, still hadn't decided if he would endorse the draft charter in the event of a referendum, but he recognized that some provisions in the draft were progressive, such as Article 76, which states: "Primary voting system must be applied with a selection of MP candidates... If a list of a party contains MP candidates of one gender more than another, there must be MP candidates of opposite gender no less than one third in the list, according to an organic law on political parties."

"This will create a more diverse pool of candidates than before," Attasit said.

"Civic education is also promoted in this draft," he said, citing how Article 66 allows no less than 10,000 eligible voters to propose draft legislature relating to freedom, rights and basic national policies.

He also lauded Article 189, which states that the exact amount and sources of budgets to support any policies must be recorded to avoid the possible creation of policies for political purposes that may cause damage to the national economy.

"Currently, we only record how we distribute budgets, but now records on their sources will also be compulsory. This will create more transparency in national budget management," he said.

Attasit raised questions about the fourth chapter, which deals with reforms and reconciliation.

"I can see something written unclearly there," he said. "What exactly is the meaning of reforms and reconciliation?"

He saw the controversial NSRRC provision in Articles 260 and 261 as "some innovation that never existed in any democratic countries" and "rather authoritarian" for its special legislative and administrative authorities over the Cabinet in times of crisis.

He also noted Article 261, which authorises the NSRRC committee to override the government's actions, and he warned it could obstruct reforms and reconciliation.

"How exactly will the committee define such actions?" he wondered.

He also pointed out that under Article 258, the NSRRC would cease to exist after five years unless either the committee, the Cabinet, more than half of the parliamentarians or no less than 50,000 citizens push for a national referendum to extend its existence.

Otherwise, the parliament can extend the lifespan of the committee if more than half of its members vote in support of such a motion.

"These conditions are not truly conditional," he said, as the committee's life span could be conveniently extended.

The undecided Attasit gave the charter a score of 50 out of 100 points.

"People should stop being concerned about how and where this draft charter comes from, as the current political situation forces it to be this way. We should rather focus on the draft's contents."

'Can't be considered legitimate'

Businessman Songkran Grachangne-tara decided not to examine the draft charter article by article.

"This is the charter, not a policy paper with individual items that we can pick and choose. We have to accept it as a whole."

Songkran, who is also a columnist, said the draft was flawed from the start and cannot be considered legitimate because the people were never involved in the drafting.

"The constitution requires legitimacy over content. Without legitimacy, it cannot last." He also challenged the legitimacy of a proposed referendum on the draft.

"A referendum must bring clear resolution for voters, while this so-called referendum doesn't really say what will happen if the majority votes 'no' to the draft," he said.

"The only thing that is certain is that the election will be postponed. And I call it blackmail: something like 'If you don't' accept the draft, then we won't have elections'."

Songkran said he would vote 'no' to the draft "because we deserve better than blackmail. We should reject it and have a process in which we are involved."

"I understand how this current approach is out of goodwill, but the way it has been conducted is wrong," he said. "And as a businessman, I'm in favour of a good economy that will be able to grow only if internal politics and divisions are settled."

Others, like Sombat Boonngam-anong, the Red Sunday group leader and anti-coup activist, and Weng Tojirakarn, the former Pheu Thai MP, have already made up their minds to reject the draft, which they considered to be deeply undemocratic.

"I don't believe the draft charter is democratic," said Sombat, who cited the NSRRC and the provision for an unelected prime minister as problems.

Sombat recognised the drafters' attempt to ensure that political parties become truly parties for members and not parties under the sway of a few people, but ultimately he considered the bigger picture.

"I want to see a democratic constitution where people truly have a say," he said, in reference to the fact that the current charter drafting committee was selected by the military junta, also known as the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).

"This sort of starting-point for a charter is just not acceptable."

Weng said the draft in its current form would enable the NCPO to hold on to power through the selection of more than half of the Senate and the NSRRC. "It will completely destroy democracy," he said, adding that sovereign power of the people would be trampled upon.

"I want to urge all people to reject it."

Not all critics of the draft charter see things in black and white.

Chamnan Chanruang, a political scientist and a member of Midnight University who opposes the coup, praised Article 264 because it requires the establishment of a united and efficient mechanism to decentralise local administrations.

"It means self-determination rights for [future] self-governing provinces," said Chamnan, who is also a prominent activist campaigning for decentralisation.

That was the only positive aspect seen by Chamnan, who considered the draft's many articles as "very regressive and likely to produce a weak coalition government."

"It would see to it that only 77 of 200 senators are elected, with the rest being appointed. However, the [senate] will have much more power than the [fully] elected lower House.

Chief among such powers, he said, was the authority to approve or recall high-ranking officials or politicians.

Chamnan also criticised the provision for the NSRRC, which is designed to allow Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha to stay in power beyond the expected election in 2016. He added that Prayut could even return as an unelected PM.

The NSRRC is so controversial that it was slammed even by people from opposite sides of the political spectrum.

Wirat Kalayasiri, a former Democrat Party MP, described it as an unnecessary provision that would create "a state within a state".

He said the charter has already made provisions for independent agencies such as the Constitutional Court and the National Anti-Corruption Commission to monitor and scrutinize the government.

Still, Wirat was delighted to see that the charter drafters opted to do away with their earlier decision to allow political groups to compete in elections.

"I see a lot of positive aspects to the draft, except the [NSRRC] committee" he said.

He wondered if the introduction of the NSRRC was meant to stir negative sentiment against the charter "so this draft will be rejected and they [a new drafting committee] can start all over again."

For business executives like Pornsil Patchrintanakul, an advisor to the Thai Chamber of Commerce, the lack of substantial economy-related provisions in the charter means he will vote against it.

"The draft makes no special mention of the economy. It has not mentioned how we can strengthen the Kingdom's competitiveness or contain any long-term agenda in driving the sustainable growth of the country. I would rather vote against it than have a bad deal," Pornsil said.

He suggested that the drafters add more articles about economic issues such as a sufficiency economic policy.

"The draft should contain at least 20 articles related to economic issues, but I found nothing in the draft."

Nopporn Thepsithar, chairman of the Thai National Shippers Council, is still hesitant about the draft charter and whether or not to endorse it.

He gave it a 50-50 chance of success and said the private sector would like to see more content related to fair trade and fair competition.

The draft should also improve the education system, which should not only focus on knowledge, but also on good attitudes and morals among Thai students, he said.

It should also focus on how to promote the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, he said, as they have to compete in an open market with foreign companies.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Experts-see-room-for-revision-in-controversial-new-30267788.html


-- The Nation 2015-08-31

[NongKhaiKid]

Thai and ' Experts ' in the same thread heading !

&nb

[NongKhaiKid]

Thai and ' Experts ' in the same thread heading !

Ouch.

Edited August 30, 2015 by NongKhaiKid

[jaidam]

Until I see a draft charter that kicks off by requiring full asset investigations of all officials(including heads of govt, police and army) and severe game changing punishment for the corrupt, it's just a waste of trees. At present we are under a junta comprised of billionaires that can not adequately explain how they came to be mega-rich on civil service salaries, and yet they deem themselves able to write a charter to promote fairness. Sniff, sniff....

[borisloosebrain]

Thai and ' Experts ' in the same thread heading !

&nb

Yeah lol

go figure eh

[ramrod711]

Songkran, who is also a columnist, said the draft was flawed from the start and cannot be considered legitimate because the people were never involved in the drafting.

I agree, as I see it, the army has no business drafting a constitution. Their job should be to maintain peace and order while "experts" do it. The only reason they should be keeping the peace is that the police can't or won't.

[Srikcir]

"a 50-50 chance of success"?

Only needs 50.1% passage in the referendum. The 2007 Constitution referendum garnered only 59% to pass.

The success of the draft to pass unfortunately has little relationship to political stability that would follow a low approval rate. Rather than a simple majority to pass the referendum, a super majority, ie., 75%, should be required to assure NATIONAL UNITY.

But such a provision would assure failure of the current draft.

[Baerboxer]

"a 50-50 chance of success"?

Only needs 50.1% passage in the referendum. The 2007 Constitution referendum garnered only 59% to pass.

The success of the draft to pass unfortunately has little relationship to political stability that would follow a low approval rate. Rather than a simple majority to pass the referendum, a super majority, ie., 75%, should be required to assure NATIONAL UNITY.

But such a provision would assure failure of the current draft.

How about 48%?

Some posters claim that as a landslide majority