Thai editorial: We've gone too long without a people's constitution

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
We've gone too long without a people's constitution
The Nation

On this anniversary of Thailand's first charter, the public's voice remains constrained - and so too is progress

BANGKOK: -- Eighty-three years ago today Thailand was bestowed with its first constitution. King Prajadhipok (Rama VII) signed the document and issued a brief statement. "I am willing to surrender the powers I formerly exercised to the people as a whole," he said, "but I am not willing to turn them over to any individual or any group to use in an autocratic manner without heeding the voice of the people."

Thailand's economic and social conditions have changed tremendously in the ensuing eight decades, but critics have consistently complained about the slow evolution of politics.

There are those who focus on the frequent changes of government over the years, the result of four-year mandates being aborted by crises and especially coups - 12 successful military coups and seven attempts since 1932.

After each successful coup, the military regime has ripped apart the existing constitution and promulgated a new set of rules. Thus we have had no fewer than 20 constitutions in those 83 years, an average of one every 4.15 years. To foreign observers, this is the surest sign of political instability, and it continues to hinder Thailand from achieving its proper potential and becoming a regional leader.

In Southeast Asia, Singapore has always stood out in terms of political stability. It has had just one constitution since gaining independence from Britain in 1965. It is today the most advanced country in the region, the only one where average private income is judged to be high. Thailand still struggles to climb out of the middle-income trap. In 2013 Singapore's per-capita income topped US$55,000 (Bt1.98 million) - 10 times higher than Thailand's.

With a decided geographical advantage, Thailand has long dreamed of becoming the region's transportation hub. But the lack of continuity in government policy has derailed a succession of major infrastructure developments, along with investment crucially needed in other economic and social areas. We have the glory of being a world-famous tourist destination, and yet we lag far behind in global rankings of education and social wellbeing.

How long are we to remain in the low rankings as a result of political instability? How long will our goals go unachieved? How long will our potential remain unrealised? Political instability, it must be more broadly realised, is the result of the common man failing to have a voice in the drafting of constitutions.

Throughout these 83 years, it was the people in power who authored all but two of Thailand's charters, those promulgated in 1974 and 1997. The rest stemmed from the top-down approach favoured by autocrats. And that's what happening again now, a major reason why social divisions continue to widen along with disparities in income and education and other key indicators or democratic progress.

In the wake of last year's military coup, Thailand is drafting another constitution. The first draft was rejected over conflicting opinions on several key issues. The current drafting committee is hard at work but, like the first team, it consists mainly of legal and political experts handpicked by the military. Some appear to know or understand little about society's most pressing needs, whereas organisations that truly represent the people have been given little if any say in the process.

This is not to say that all hope for advancement is lost. The drafting committee, despite its makeup, might well find a way to represent the needs and desires of the common people. They should embrace suggestions and recommendations offered by the public and seriously take into consideration the troubled state of our society.

Only if this is done might our 21st charter enjoy a longer life than many of its predecessors. It is well past time for the country to find lasting stability and move forward again towards prosperity.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Weve-gone-too-long-without-a-peoples-constitution-30274608.html


-- The Nation 2015-12-10

[londonthai]

so bring back 1997 constitution - but, no, there must be a new one, because that one was too democratic.

wasn't it The Nation, which instigated the last 2 military coups (and many previous ones), to abolish any remains of people's constitution?

Edited December 9, 2015 by londonthai

[chrisrazz]

12 successful, 7 attempted coups, 20 constitutions, surely there's a pattern here.

Costa Rica on the other hand?

[simon43]

but I am not willing to turn them over to any individual or any group to use in an autocratic manner without heeding the voice of the people

Yep - that turned out well, didn't it

[jacky54]

No, it's too long without a PEOPLE'S ELECTION

Edited December 10, 2015 by jacky54

[siddv]

Wait another five years

[craigt3365]

so bring back 1997 constitution - but, no, there must be a new one, because that one was too democratic.

wasn't it The Nation, which instigated the last 2 military coups (and many previous ones), to abolish any remains of people's constitution?

You are saying the reason for the last 2 coups was due to a media group? I think you give them too much credit.

[oneday]

"but I am not willing to turn them over to any individual or any group to use in an autocratic manner without heeding the voice of the people."

Oops, looks like someone wasn't paying attention.

But, but, but everything is going according to the our roadmap exactly as we planned. The problem is there are many twists and turns in parts of the road where we have to travel up, over and down mountains that were unmapped and that’s not counting the many dead-ends, blind alleys and detours we are running into.

We will get there by 2025…for sure!

[h90]

so bring back 1997 constitution - but, no, there must be a new one, because that one was too democratic.

wasn't it The Nation, which instigated the last 2 military coups (and many previous ones), to abolish any remains of people's constitution?

the 1997 was not very democratic as it gave the PM way too much power and too less checks and balances.

And different than the 2006 constitution it was made in the backroom from some self serving politician without any referendum.

So calling it people's constitution is just marketing.

But the 1997 would make a good draft, just fixing the issues it has. Or take any constitution that worked well in other country and use it. Writing a new constitution again and again with more and more mistakes inside is plain stupid.

Copy the US or Swiss or the German Grundgesetz, adjust it for Thailand (Monarchy).

[Tatsujin]

None of this is rocket science and there are tons of models out there to take the best pieces from, but no, that's not the Thai way ... got to learn from their mistakes, rather than avoiding making them, except they're not learning ...

[JAG]

Wait another five years

Another 5 years of this and Thailand will likely resemble Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.

[londonthai]

so bring back 1997 constitution - but, no, there must be a new one, because that one was too democratic.

wasn't it The Nation, which instigated the last 2 military coups (and many previous ones), to abolish any remains of people's constitution?

the 1997 was not very democratic as it gave the PM way too much power and too less checks and balances.

And different than the 2006 constitution it was made in the backroom from some self serving politician without any referendum.

So calling it people's constitution is just marketing.

But the 1997 would make a good draft, just fixing the issues it has. Or take any constitution that worked well in other country and use it. Writing a new constitution again and again with more and more mistakes inside is plain stupid.

Copy the US or Swiss or the German Grundgesetz, adjust it for Thailand (Monarchy).

"The Constitution was highly praised for the participative process involved in its drafting, its enshrinement of human rights, and its significant advances in political reform.[8] It was viewed as successful in fostering democratic development and increasing political stability.[44] Its measures to politically empower and protect citizens were also praised.[45] The January 2001 House elections, the first House elections contested under the 1997 Constitution, were called the most open, corruption-free election in Thai history.[11] Political parties were effectively strengthened, and the effective number of parties in the legislature fell.[46] Most criticism was based on the perspective that the Constitution was too effective in some of its reforms. One of the members of the Drafting Committee, Amorn Chantarasomboon, claimed that an overly strong and stable government brought on a "tyranny of the majority" and a "parliamentary dictatorship."[47] Following House elections in April 2006, the Election Commissioners were jailed and the election results overturned by the Constitutional Court."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Thailand#Praise_and_criticism

as to 2006 constitution, it was written by a military junta, to serve their own interests, including amnesty for their wrongdoings.

and about 2006 constitution:

"The 2006 Interim Constitution specified the terms and conditions for the drafting of a permanent constitution. The drafting committee consisted of drafters both directly and indirectly appointed by the CNS junta. The draft was subject to a public referendum, but under the terms of the 2006 Constitution, the CNS would be allowed to promulgate any constitution of their choosing if the draft failed the referendum. The draft was criticized by the Thai Rak Thai party and supported by the Democrat party. Criticism of the draft was banned. The CNS attempted to link loyalty to the King with support for the draft, and ran a campaign with the slogan "Love the King. Care about the King. Vote in a referendum. Accept the 2007 draft charter."^[57][58] The draft was approved by 59.3% of the voters on 19 August 2007, with 55.6% of qualified voters voting.

Under the 2007 Constitution, only half of the Senate was elected; the other half was appointed. The executive branch was weakened, and half as many MPs were needed to propose a no-confidence vote compared to the 1997 Constitution. The judiciary was strengthened and high-ranking judges became part of the appointment committees for the Senate, the Election Commission, and virtually all other independent agencies, causing critics to label The 2007 Constituton as "The Absolute Rule of Judges.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Thailand#2007_Constitution

[elgordo38]

Wait another five years

After 83 years of going nowhere another 5 years should be a walk in the park. It takes time to craft a straight jack constitution that looks palpable to the people. Look at Burma. The lady better walk lightly there as there is a big bad bear hiding in the bushes just waiting to say " Well we gave it a chance Democracy does not work"

[elgordo38]

so bring back 1997 constitution - but, no, there must be a new one, because that one was too democratic.

wasn't it The Nation, which instigated the last 2 military coups (and many previous ones), to abolish any remains of people's constitution?

You are saying the reason for the last 2 coups was due to a media group? I think you give them too much credit.

"The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page." - St. Augustine. Fast forward to today. The world IS the media. It spoon feeds us political crap/drivel daily. As we "travel" through their daily offerings?? Time to go out and buy hip waders and a shovel. Sometimes watching all that "buffering" on the computer "news" I wonder if they are not sending me a subliminal/hypnotic message. Yes I see and obey.

[h90]

so bring back 1997 constitution - but, no, there must be a new one, because that one was too democratic.

wasn't it The Nation, which instigated the last 2 military coups (and many previous ones), to abolish any remains of people's constitution?

the 1997 was not very democratic as it gave the PM way too much power and too less checks and balances.

And different than the 2006 constitution it was made in the backroom from some self serving politician without any referendum.

So calling it people's constitution is just marketing.

But the 1997 would make a good draft, just fixing the issues it has. Or take any constitution that worked well in other country and use it. Writing a new constitution again and again with more and more mistakes inside is plain stupid.

Copy the US or Swiss or the German Grundgesetz, adjust it for Thailand (Monarchy).

"The Constitution was highly praised for the participative process involved in its drafting, its enshrinement of human rights, and its significant advances in political reform.[8] It was viewed as successful in fostering democratic development and increasing political stability.[44] Its measures to politically empower and protect citizens were also praised.[45] The January 2001 House elections, the first House elections contested under the 1997 Constitution, were called the most open, corruption-free election in Thai history.[11] Political parties were effectively strengthened, and the effective number of parties in the legislature fell.[46] Most criticism was based on the perspective that the Constitution was too effective in some of its reforms. One of the members of the Drafting Committee, Amorn Chantarasomboon, claimed that an overly strong and stable government brought on a "tyranny of the majority" and a "parliamentary dictatorship."[47] Following House elections in April 2006, the Election Commissioners were jailed and the election results overturned by the Constitutional Court."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Thailand#Praise_and_criticism

as to 2006 constitution, it was written by a military junta, to serve their own interests, including amnesty for their wrongdoings.

and about 2006 constitution:

"The 2006 Interim Constitution specified the terms and conditions for the drafting of a permanent constitution. The drafting committee consisted of drafters both directly and indirectly appointed by the CNS junta. The draft was subject to a public referendum, but under the terms of the 2006 Constitution, the CNS would be allowed to promulgate any constitution of their choosing if the draft failed the referendum. The draft was criticized by the Thai Rak Thai party and supported by the Democrat party. Criticism of the draft was banned. The CNS attempted to link loyalty to the King with support for the draft, and ran a campaign with the slogan "Love the King. Care about the King. Vote in a referendum. Accept the 2007 draft charter."^[57][58] The draft was approved by 59.3% of the voters on 19 August 2007, with 55.6% of qualified voters voting.

Under the 2007 Constitution, only half of the Senate was elected; the other half was appointed. The executive branch was weakened, and half as many MPs were needed to propose a no-confidence vote compared to the 1997 Constitution. The judiciary was strengthened and high-ranking judges became part of the appointment committees for the Senate, the Election Commission, and virtually all other independent agencies, causing critics to label The 2007 Constituton as "The Absolute Rule of Judges.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Thailand#2007_Constitution

Of course that these who benefit from the constitution praise it......and these who get hindered in filling their pockets complain.

But just a few points: The elections under the 1997 constitution where these with the worst full scale vote buying ever.

CNS told if the 2006 is rejected they reinstall a slightly modified 1997 constitution.

There was a big anti-constitution movement up country...still the people voted for it.

The 2006 constitution belongs into the trash bin of history, no question but it was made because the 1997 constitution failed completely.

The 2016 or 17 constitution will be also bad, it would be the surprise of the decade if it isn't. But that doesn't make the 1997 constitution good.

[JAG]

Wait another five years

After 83 years of going nowhere another 5 years should be a walk in the park. It takes time to craft a straight jack constitution that looks palpable to the people. Look at Burma. The lady better walk lightly there as there is a big bad bear hiding in the bushes just waiting to say " Well we gave it a chance Democracy does not work"

Elgordo, there is one major difference between the present (and next 5 years) and the last 83. The internet. It provides almost universal (if you can afford B1000 for a base model smart phone) access to media and communication. Previously information was circulated by print, radio and TV. Communication was by mail and telephone. All relatively easy to monitor, and if things got a bit fraught, to direct or even close down. The Internet, and mobile phones are much more difficult to control. That had a lot to do , in my opinion, with the Burmese Junta being forced to allow changes and ultimately elections; and the level of usage - penetration if you like - in Thailand is vastly greater. No question most social media communication at present is inconsequential drivel, photos of food and such, but it has the most phenomenal potential for allowing real time exchange of information and ideas. Change will happen much more quickly in the next few years, largely as a result of this. What remains to be seen is whether the change will be peaceful or violent.

Of course social media can be shut down, but that would be the spark which would ignite a brush fire that would be uncontrollable. They know that.

[impulse]

Yes again we all the easy and right answers.... Unfortunately they have the wrong man steering the ship. And all smart Thais I spoke to agree hands down.

That's strange. Most of the Thais I work with seem to think he's doing a reasonable job in a precarious and difficult situation.

[bark]

so bring back 1997 constitution - but, no, there must be a new one, because that one was too democratic.

wasn't it The Nation, which instigated the last 2 military coups (and many previous ones), to abolish any remains of people's constitution?

the 1997 was not very democratic as it gave the PM way too much power and too less checks and balances.

And different than the 2006 constitution it was made in the backroom from some self serving politician without any referendum.

So calling it people's constitution is just marketing.

But the 1997 would make a good draft, just fixing the issues it has. Or take any constitution that worked well in other country and use it. Writing a new constitution again and again with more and more mistakes inside is plain stupid.

Copy the US or Swiss or the German Grundgesetz, adjust it for Thailand (Monarchy).

You do realize that the USA fought a Civil War 100 years after they drafted their constitution. It allowed for slaves. And you really think that a country who is proud of the fact they were never colonized; would want Farang to help write this document !

[lostinisaan]

In the 15 years of constantly living here, I'm still struggling to come to a decision if Thailand is a democratic, or a democrazy country?

Or is it just a by the Junta ruled place that would like to "show the rest of the world" that it would be good to have democracy? I remember what I've learned at school:

"A democracy is usually a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

Did anybody really "select" the "good general" and all the other generals who've got the most powerful positions?

"Capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world"

[lostinisaan]

None of this is rocket science and there are tons of models out there to take the best pieces from, but no, that's not the Thai way ... got to learn from their mistakes, rather than avoiding making them, except they're not learning ...

Copying something from a board into your notebook, without even knowing what it is, doesn't make you to a professional.

[kingalfred]

Failed State or Kingdom

[EnglishJohn]

In the 15 years of constantly living here, I'm still struggling to come to a decision if Thailand is a democratic, or a democrazy country?

Or is it just a by the Junta ruled place that would like to "show the rest of the world" that it would be good to have democracy? I remember what I've learned at school:

"A democracy is usually a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

Did anybody really "select" the "good general" and all the other generals who've got the most powerful positions?

"Capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world"

You have a good memory - I found exactly the same text with a search of google just 5 minutes ago.

It's clear you don't really follow Thai politics otherwise you would not be asking those questions.

1) People don't select Generals in the Army. This is a miltary Junta, not a democracy. Nobody has said anything else.

2) You may have missed that Thailand recently had a coup. It was because the government passed an amnesty bill to forgive them all corruption crimes since 2004. Even worse, it was really just for Thaksin and yet they passed it 310 votes to 0. When the people they are supposed to represent went on the streets in mass protest, they started to kill them using terrorism.

3) Thaksin refused to compromise or back down in any way. His only chance for amnesty is to have a government in power under his control. The amnesty bill could be passed in 6 months with no opposition or checks from the Senate possible so he just had to cling on for that long and he could come back a free man.

4) In increasing desparation, the murders continued and threatened to spread into some Thai-style civil war. That's when the coup happened.

5) The intentions of the Junta are to change the rules so such an abuse of power is not possible in the future. They will hold the most free and fair election Thailand has managed yet in 2016 or 17.

So Thailand does not have democracy and it didn't have it before either. The best you can say is they had an elected government - but getting power through bankrupting the country with things like the rice scam and attempting massive off-budget loans to fund the vote-buying policies does not make them democratic.

So now the people will get to have another go and see how bad they can mess it up this time. Maybe the new rules will allow different politicians to run who can campaign in the North without getting shot or intimidated away. Or maybe it will have the same dirty faces who will just do their best to carry on as before and set about changing the rules back again.

My current thinking is 30/70 in favour of the latter.

[EnglishJohn]

None of this is rocket science and there are tons of models out there to take the best pieces from, but no, that's not the Thai way ... got to learn from their mistakes, rather than avoiding making them, except they're not learning ...

Copying something from a board into your notebook, without even knowing what it is, doesn't make you to a professional.

Copying something word for word from google and pretending you remember it from school does not make you an expert either.

[craigt3365]

so bring back 1997 constitution - but, no, there must be a new one, because that one was too democratic.

wasn't it The Nation, which instigated the last 2 military coups (and many previous ones), to abolish any remains of people's constitution?

You are saying the reason for the last 2 coups was due to a media group? I think you give them too much credit.

"The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page." - St. Augustine. Fast forward to today. The world IS the media. It spoon feeds us political crap/drivel daily. As we "travel" through their daily offerings?? Time to go out and buy hip waders and a shovel. Sometimes watching all that "buffering" on the computer "news" I wonder if they are not sending me a subliminal/hypnotic message. Yes I see and obey.

No need for waders and a shovel. I don't wear a tin foil hat. Nor do I believe in subliminal messages. Back to reality, please.

[John1012]

Thailand is like England before 1215, or France before 1789. It is ruled by a powerful introverted group of very rich families. This is on top of endemic institutional corruption, lack of adherance to the written law and inadequate education standards, Thais are not taught to think for themselves and ask questions. They are not unintelligent, just ill informed and unable to take advantage of their intelligence . The basis for a democrracy is adherance to the rule of law, equality for all under the law and the ability for the individual to question and debate the authority of those in power. None of these conditions exist here in Thailand. With the LM laws, the defamation laws, the ability of the "elite class" to function outside the law, the average individual Thai cannot challenge the status quo. The advance of access to un modified information (internet)and access to international travel has given the average Thai the ability to see past the existing roadblocks to democratic advancement, but, I feel that it will take at least another generation before the structure of power changes and give the 'prolls' the tools to impose democratic rule in Thailand, and even then it might be bloody. At this current time in Thailand, with impending change inevitable, strong control of the country is required, in order to keep civil strife under control. This we have. Until the situation has stabalised and the current government has overcome the lack of planning by ALL the previous governments, ie. Water management, adherence to basic laws, inadequate education standards,inadequate electric power infrastructure, low civil engineering standards etc. a democratic type of government is not possible in Thailand.

[Langsuan Man]

Here take your pick, seems to me you have plenty of choices:

1. Temporary Charter for the Administration of Siam Act 1932
2. The Constitution of the Siam Kingdom 1932
3. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 1946
4. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Temporary) 1947
5. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 1949
6. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 1932 (Revised 1952)
7. Charter for the Administration of the Kingdom 1959
8. Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 1968
9. Temporary Charter for Administration of the Kingdom 1972
10. Constitution for the Administration of the Kingdom 1974
11. Constitution for Administration of the Kingdom 1976
12. Charter for Administration of the Kingdom 1977
13. Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 1978
14. Charter for Administration of the Kingdom 1991
15. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 1991
16. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 1997
17. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim) 2006
18. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand 2007
19. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim) 2014