Top 10 Thai Universities Ranked Globally, Chulalongkorn Leads

[Lite Beer]

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW
Charter drafter Banjerd defends clauses attracting heat in new constitution
The Sunday Nation

BANGKOK: -- When they handed the draft charter to the National Reform Council on August 22, charter drafters had given reasons to the public that this charter had key aims to help patch up past conflicts, move the country toward reconciliation, and bring about tangible reforms. Some elements are unprecedented and new terms have been used like " transitional democracy", but questions have also emerged. Banjerd Sinkaneti, a vice secretary to the Constitution Drafting Committee, talks to The Sunday Nation's Piyaporn Wongruang on why they crafted the charter in such a way.

THE PUBLIC SEEMS TO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS OVER THE CHARTER DRAFT YOU HAVE CRAFTED, COULD YOU DETAIL THE CORE PRINCIPLE OR THOUGHTS BEHIND THE CRAFTING?

You may have seen that we have divided the charter into four key chapters. One is about the country's regime, the King, and the people. The second is involved political structures and institutions, the third is about the justice system and state scrutiny, and the last is reform and reconciliation.

You may see now that it is not the same as anything ever written. What's very new is Chapter 4, which is about reform and reconciliation. In fact, this is the very first and foremost thing, which is fundamental to this charter.

Secondly, we had a commitment with the interim charter, which addresses problems and challenges that we must help resolve with the new charter. Lastly, we looked into the country's problems and bring them to the table.

So, you will see that we wrote the charter based on the problems that we have, the commitments that we have, and a wish for a structure we would like to have.

WHAT ARE THE "CLASSIC CHARTERS" LIKE, AND HOW DIFFERENT ARE THEY FROM THIS ONE?

Normally, when you write a charter, what would be in it would only be two key elements, one is about rights and freedom of people, and the other is about the political structure, which includes administrative power, legislative, and judicial power. That's it.

But what we have done this time is far different from that. In Germany, for instance, if it is an absolute administrative power, what they find to help balance this power is the power of the constitutional court. Or in France, if they find that the government is weak, they design a presidental system to it back up. It's all about designing political structures to fit their societies. They don't touch much on the part concerning the people as they enjoy full rights and freedom.

But besides adjusting around these things, we have added two key elements which are unprecedented. One is about active citizens in chapter one, the other is about reform and reconciliation … our country needs to address how we can be good active citizens, which is very basic in a democratic country. And then we move on to the balance of power via the political structure part, state scrutiny, which is also new, and last but not least, reform and reconciliation.

If you think about what's wrong with our country, I would like to bring you back [what occurred during] the reign of King Rama V. We had major reform. But since then we have never had such a thing for our society.

As time went by, we have lost the balance of power as it has been centralised. There have been advantages [to this] and there have also been disadvantages. Then inequality has become deep-rooted, and conflicts have erupted like we have seen as a result. So, what we really need is to adjust the balance power. At this point we cannot do that by only adjusting political structures alone any more. We have problems to resolve, and we have to prepare ourselves and fix them via major reform.

WITH ALL THOSE THOUGHTS, HOW HAVE YOU TRANSLATED THEM IN THE DRAFTING PROCESS?

Like I have shared with you, we divided the content into four key chapters, maintaining those two classic elements with a degree of adjustment and inclusions in chapter one and chapter two, while coming up with something completely new in chapter four.

"Active citizen", like I said, can't be found in any other constitution in the world but ours.

YOU HAVE DONE A LOT WITH THE SECOND ELEMENT, WHICH IS ABOUT POLITICAL STRUCTURES?

Yes, we have. We have changed the electoral system to a mixed proportional system where party-list votes can really count and help determine the number of people representatives in the House (the nationwide party-list votes would determine the number of party-list MPs each party has. The number of constituency MPs will then be deducted from this number to determine the party list members to be added). In the past the list did not help reflect the real number of seats that political parties should have in the House, but this time it will be really meaningful and shake the system.

For senators, we designed it so they will come for multiple professions as we want them to reflect the reality of society. But as some of them will not come directly from the people, they will not have the power to remove elected representatives of the people. It's kind of a balance that we designed … to close all the loopholes of power.

For an outsider prime minister, we put it that way as a last option for a political deadlock we have ever experienced. It's like a fire exit for your house. People may critical over he or she not being the people's choices, but we have actually tied him or her up with your representatives as they will be the ones who pick him or her.

A part from that, we have laid several mechanisms for checks and balances in Parliament. The most crucial one is impeachment against those found to be corrupt. There is also scrutiny of state budgets to prevent populism as well.

PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONED THE NEW MECHANISM IN CHAPTER FOUR, WHICH IS A REFORM AND RECONCILIATION COMMITTEE. HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THIS?

Actually, this chapter was longer than you have seen, but we cut it down as we have removed detail about the reform of a new Act. And we will have another Act to support reconciliation strategies. The new mechanism will drive this with an independent panel it appoints.

AND THIS COMMITTEE WILL HAVE POWER AND PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONED WHETHER IT WILL OVERRULE THE GOVERNMENT?

Looking back at what we have been through, can you say we are OK, everything is fine? Maybe not. That's the reason why we need to reform and have mechanisms to help bring us towards that and success. We have met politicians over time, and I will ask whether they would do all this for the country? They didn't as they were concerned only with votes. So, people may have criticisms but we cannot measure things with the same ruler any more. Things are different now.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Charter-drafter-Banjerd-defends-clauses-attracting-30268225.html

-- The Nation 2015-09-06

[Charlie Croker]

Impeaching corrupt politicians?

Implementing a balanced power of veto, so the inmates don't take over the asylum?

Proportional voting system?

Are these people mad I wonder? these eminently sensible ideas will never go over with those robber barons who milk the state for every ounce of graft they can get their greedy fat little fingers on.

What's hilarious is that in public they will state its chapter 4, reconciliation which they object to. In reality its Chapter one, controlling the golden goose.

The current system simply doesn't work. Time for a change

[Blackfalds]

A dutiful sales pitch. Asking someone if he likes what he did, and why he did it.

This would be acceptable in an environment where the disadvantaged side of the political divide could discuss what this charter is doing to them, and the majority electorate.

And where historical events are described realistically, instead of their own spin. For starters, trying to characterize the PDRC's contrived political turmoil as not being contrived.

I admit however, that I didn't go past the headline. That was enough all by itself. Time being valuable and all, you understand.

All that aside however, all of it interesting to someone inconsequential with respect to Thai Politics..

[greenchair]

He avoided that last question very well didn't he.

What's the matter ??

[smedly]

Impeaching corrupt politicians?

Implementing a balanced power of veto, so the inmates don't take over the asylum?

Proportional voting system?

Are these people mad I wonder? these eminently sensible ideas will never go over with those robber barons who milk the state for every ounce of graft they can get their greedy fat little fingers on.

What's hilarious is that in public they will state its chapter 4, reconciliation which they object to. In reality its Chapter one, controlling the golden goose.

The current system simply doesn't work. Time for a change

They should have enacted the charter without voting, various political elements and organisations that have been trough feeders for decades will do everything in their power to dupe the people to reject it because their primary goal of filling their pockets will be severely restricted for the first time in Thai political history, I may not agree with all the elements in the draft but one thing seems very loud to me - who the objectionists are and why

The unelected PM which has been brought up many times is not exactly what the people are being lead to believe, the PM will always be elected either by the people or those in parliament - I see no foul there.

As for this controversial commitee - well I'm 50/50 on that one, take it or leave it

[JAG]

Impeaching corrupt politicians?

Implementing a balanced power of veto, so the inmates don't take over the asylum?

Proportional voting system?

Are these people mad I wonder? these eminently sensible ideas will never go over with those robber barons who milk the state for every ounce of graft they can get their greedy fat little fingers on.

What's hilarious is that in public they will state its chapter 4, reconciliation which they object to. In reality its Chapter one, controlling the golden goose.

The current system simply doesn't work. Time for a change

They should have enacted the charter without voting, various political elements and organisations that have been trough feeders for decades will do everything in their power to dupe the people to reject it because their primary goal of filling their pockets will be severely restricted for the first time in Thai political history, I may not agree with all the elements in the draft but one thing seems very loud to me - who the objectionists are and why

The unelected PM which has been brought up many times is not exactly what the people are being lead to believe, the PM will always be elected either by the people or those in parliament - I see no foul there.

As for this controversial commitee - well I'm 50/50 on that one, take it or leave it

Enact the charter without any reference to the electorate!

But then from what I can recollect you have never really given a fig for the views expressed by the Thai electorate have you?

[smedly]

Impeaching corrupt politicians?

Implementing a balanced power of veto, so the inmates don't take over the asylum?

Proportional voting system?

Are these people mad I wonder? these eminently sensible ideas will never go over with those robber barons who milk the state for every ounce of graft they can get their greedy fat little fingers on.

What's hilarious is that in public they will state its chapter 4, reconciliation which they object to. In reality its Chapter one, controlling the golden goose.

The current system simply doesn't work. Time for a change

They should have enacted the charter without voting, various political elements and organisations that have been trough feeders for decades will do everything in their power to dupe the people to reject it because their primary goal of filling their pockets will be severely restricted for the first time in Thai political history, I may not agree with all the elements in the draft but one thing seems very loud to me - who the objectionists are and why

The unelected PM which has been brought up many times is not exactly what the people are being lead to believe, the PM will always be elected either by the people or those in parliament - I see no foul there.

As for this controversial commitee - well I'm 50/50 on that one, take it or leave it

Enact the charter without any reference to the electorate!

But then from what I can recollect you have never really given a fig for the views expressed by the Thai electorate have you?

You can accuse me of what ever you like, your agenda is obvious, one thing I do know, right now certain elements within Thailand are doing there best the thwart this process and I know why, we could go back to the USA constitution as a reference were the people didn't get a vote either and look how long that has lasted, some things just need to be done and get on with it, nothing so far in Thailand has worked and I also know the reason for that too.

Don't bother with a reply as I am not interested in what you have to say

[Jon Wetherall]

Charter drafter Banjerd defends clauses attracting heat in new constitution

Of course he does...

Edited September 6, 2015 by Jon Wetherall

[JAG]

Impeaching corrupt politicians?

Implementing a balanced power of veto, so the inmates don't take over the asylum?

Proportional voting system?

Are these people mad I wonder? these eminently sensible ideas will never go over with those robber barons who milk the state for every ounce of graft they can get their greedy fat little fingers on.

What's hilarious is that in public they will state its chapter 4, reconciliation which they object to. In reality its Chapter one, controlling the golden goose.

The current system simply doesn't work. Time for a change

They should have enacted the charter without voting, various political elements and organisations that have been trough feeders for decades will do everything in their power to dupe the people to reject it because their primary goal of filling their pockets will be severely restricted for the first time in Thai political history, I may not agree with all the elements in the draft but one thing seems very loud to me - who the objectionists are and why

The unelected PM which has been brought up many times is not exactly what the people are being lead to believe, the PM will always be elected either by the people or those in parliament - I see no foul there.

As for this controversial commitee - well I'm 50/50 on that one, take it or leave it

Enact the charter without any reference to the electorate!

But then from what I can recollect you have never really given a fig for the views expressed by the Thai electorate have you?

You can accuse me of what ever you like, your agenda is obvious, one thing I do know, right now certain elements within Thailand are doing there best the thwart this process and I know why, we could go back to the USA constitution as a reference were the people didn't get a vote either and look how long that has lasted, some things just need to be done and get on with it, nothing so far in Thailand has worked and I also know the reason for that too.

Don't bother with a reply as I am not interested in what you have to say

Nor indeed in anything the Thai people may have to day.

[MZurf]

Impeaching corrupt politicians?

Implementing a balanced power of veto, so the inmates don't take over the asylum?

Proportional voting system?

Are these people mad I wonder? these eminently sensible ideas will never go over with those robber barons who milk the state for every ounce of graft they can get their greedy fat little fingers on.

What's hilarious is that in public they will state its chapter 4, reconciliation which they object to. In reality its Chapter one, controlling the golden goose.

The current system simply doesn't work. Time for a change

They should have enacted the charter without voting, various political elements and organisations that have been trough feeders for decades will do everything in their power to dupe the people to reject it because their primary goal of filling their pockets will be severely restricted for the first time in Thai political history, I may not agree with all the elements in the draft but one thing seems very loud to me - who the objectionists are and why

The unelected PM which has been brought up many times is not exactly what the people are being lead to believe, the PM will always be elected either by the people or those in parliament - I see no foul there.

As for this controversial commitee - well I'm 50/50 on that one, take it or leave it

Are you talking about the unelected committee that rules the nation, accountable to no one? You're 50/50 on it?? Glad you showed us your totalitarian preferences.

[rubl]

Of course a charter drafter defends what's drafted.

BTW Banjerd Sinkaneti, a vice secretary to the Constitution Drafting Committee

what type of secretary is that? Same like Tarit 'know nothing' in CRES 2010?

[dominique355]

I wonder if the questions asked were fed to The Nation by the CDC.

Some crucial points were elegantly avoided such as the Crisis Panel, which by itself is enough for making a decision how to vote.

[Jon Wetherall]

Impeaching corrupt politicians?

Implementing a balanced power of veto, so the inmates don't take over the asylum?

Proportional voting system?

Are these people mad I wonder? these eminently sensible ideas will never go over with those robber barons who milk the state for every ounce of graft they can get their greedy fat little fingers on.

What's hilarious is that in public they will state its chapter 4, reconciliation which they object to. In reality its Chapter one, controlling the golden goose.

The current system simply doesn't work. Time for a change

May I suggest you go and discuss iy being time for a change with that nice Mr P - he'll probably invite you home, he doesn't have very many friends.

He may even let you try on his tall hat.

He's bound to take you seriously too - really.

[Thai at Heart]

Instead of trying to solve specific problems they should realise that the problems came about because the constitution was previously written badly.

If they write the constitution correctly and make a clear path to allow it to be modified, there won't be any problems. S

[rayw]

Proportional voting system?

The current system simply doesn't work. Time for a change

On the first quoted point above well of course and YES YES YES as anyone who understands even remotely how PR works and supports democracy HAS to agree with that being the best and most sound democratic choice !! The last thing we want is a return to First Past The Post, with the resulting usual minority elected Governments, which is a deeply flawed and quite undemocratic system unless there are only two political parties allowed to contest elections and that is only one more than in a one party dictatorship.

On the second point I fully agree and why this charter is essential and needs to be just right and allow true and unarguably honest democracy to prevail.

[Srikcir]

"how we can be good active citizens, which is very basic in a democratic country."

A democratic country does NOT require its citizens to be either good or active. Participatory democracy is just what is says: you don't participate you concede your rights to those who do. Democracy does not come at the end of a gun barrel. It's about equal opportunity to make a choice.

A choice can be fair, unfair, wise or unwise - there is no standard for "good." Ultimately, the choices made by democratic citizens are made through debate, information, sharing and equality.

[rubl]

"how we can be good active citizens, which is very basic in a democratic country."

A democratic country does NOT require its citizens to be either good or active. Participatory democracy is just what is says: you don't participate you concede your rights to those who do. Democracy does not come at the end of a gun barrel. It's about equal opportunity to make a choice.

A choice can be fair, unfair, wise or unwise - there is no standard for "good." Ultimately, the choices made by democratic citizens are made through debate, information, sharing and equality.

In a democracy no one 'concedes' rights. One votes and grant certain powers temporarily.

That not the same as the PTP attitude of "thanks for voting, we have a mandate, go home now"