A Referendum on the Amendments?

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10355625.post-2281709527742351552008-05-07T01:00:00.000+07:002008-05-07T01:31:42.933+07:00A Referendum on the Amendments?The Bangkok Post <a href="http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/05May2008_news06.php">reports</a> (<a href="http://pages.citebite.com/q4a8p0b4phdh">cache</a>): <blockquote> ''Our push for the charter amendments did not begin just recently,'' Sutin Klangsang, deputy spokesman of the ruling People Power party, said. In fact, it was the party's main election policy platform, suggesting that the outcome of the general election would decide whether the constitution should be revised, he said. ''We also made a public commitment that we would use the 1997 charter as a model for the charter changes. And in our policy statement to parliament, we pledged a charter review. ''We are doing just what we promised to undertake.'' Mr Sutin said his party had full faith in the 1997 charter ''as it has a soul'' and would connect better with the people. ''Even though it was seen as good, 10 years after it was promulgated the parties involved perceived the need to amend the 1997 charter. ... ''Back then we suggested that the 1997 charter be revised, but we never got the chance to see it through.'' The coup led to the formation of the Constitution Drafting Assembly and the writing of the the 2007 charter. A constitution's acceptance depends on its legitimacy, content and the atmosphere in which it was drafted. The 2007 charter was ''not so legitimate'' since much of its content was disputed, he said. Moreover, the country was under the control of the military when the charter was drafted and put to a national referendum. A public referendum should be held in an atmosphere in which people are free to make decisions. ''Why so early? The 2007 constitution has posed a number of problems. ''Firstly, MPs are troubled by an article which they see as obstructing their work. ''The article in question (Article 266) prohibits MPs and senators from using their positions to interfere in the operations of government agencies. ''The charter writers may not have intentionally restricted MPs, but the article somehow intimidates MPs, putting them in a position where they feel as if their hands are tied. ''Right now, when people are unfairly treated by police, we dare not interfere. ''Secondly, we admit that our bid for wholesale charter changes is partly inspired by the party dissolution rules. ''What is happening these days is that the Thai public and the international community are questioning the country's political stability. ''At the end of the day, the PPP may not be dissolved, but what we currently see is shrinking confidence in the country's political stability. ''They have even started asking how long the government will stay in power and with whom they should discuss the kingdom's economic problems. ''Concern is also growing about whether the public will shy away from engaging in political activities and developing political parties. ''If the ruling party is disbanded, we believe it will lead to political turmoil.'' Thirdly, he said, there is no guarantee the PPP-led government will be in power long enough to push through the changes. Amid this sense of insecurity, the government could collapse in its first, second or third year in office. Mr Sutin said this sense of insecurity would be passed on to the next government or the next parliament. ''There is a high risk involved, but it will never be free of risks, whether we do it now or later. ''Are the amendments self-serving? It is hard to say since the amendments could bring a premature end for us as well,'' he said. ''We might be able to survive longer by not pushing for the changes and allow the party dissolution trial to proceed. We can't say for sure if the charter changes will benefit us. ''We are pushing for the amendments because we cannot afford to let this sense of insecurity haunt the next government as well. ''We are not saying the amendments have nothing to do with the party's possible dissolution. ''But it is not the only reason why the changes are being demanded.'' As a matter of fact, he said, the 2007 charter is not that bad. But it has a weak point. ''It is derived from a dictatorship. This is why we plan to draft a new one. If initiated by the people, it would be more sacred and acceptable,'' he said. On the argument that the 2007 constitution is legitimate because it was approved by a national referendum, considered as participatory democracy, he said the party was trying to combine participatory democracy with representative democracy. ''We would like to propose that the charter amendment process be started by MPs,'' he said. After the draft amendment is debated in parliament and clears its first and second readings, it will be put to another national referendum. ''If it is rejected by the people, the parliament will not accept it in the third reading. ''This is better than the proposed establishment of a constitution drafting assembly. I will propose this. ''A referendum is a good thing and it is needed to ensure the amendments are truly acceptable,'' he said.</blockquote> BP: So referendum and new elections? This seems like his personal view, but I am coming to the view that the referendum is an option that should be seriously considered simply as the elite are mobilising personnel to pushback on the referendum. <a href="http://www.bangkokpost.com/020508_News/02May2008_news001.php">Thirayuth</a>: <blockquote>"If the government still insists on amending the charter to clean up its wrongdoings and save its people from [corruption] cases, that will be the beginning of a second crisis," Mr Thirayuth said. The first crisis he was referring to were the rallies against then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra that were confronted by his supporters, and which culminated in the military coup that drove him from office in 2006. The Thammasat University academic said that with the push for a new constitution, the country was heading for a rift in society between those who support and those who oppose amending the charter.</blockquote> From a <a href="http://www.bangkokpost.com/020508_News/02May2008_news001.php">conference</a>: <blockquote>The People Power party and its coalition partners should delay their plan to amend the 2007 constitution and allow the country's highest law to take its course so that people could see its positive and negative effects on the country, it was suggested at a forum yesterday. The proposal was made by speakers at the forum organised by the National Economic and Social Advisory Council (Nesac) to debate the issue. Panellists joining the debate said they believed the PPP really wanted to amend the constitution to save itself and two other coalition partners _ Chart Thai, and Matchimathipataya _ from being dissolved for electoral fraud. They also said the amendment move was aimed at interfering with judicial power and the selection process of members of some independent public organisations to whitewash former premier Thaksin Shinawatra of graft charges.</blockquote> <a href="http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/06May2008_news12.php">A group of senior doctors</a> - who statements have been given widespread coverage in the TV media: <blockquote>A group of senior doctors is moving to pre-empt a looming political crisis brought about by the government's insistence on wholesale changes to the 2007 constitution. The physicians will today release a statement advising the government and parties concerned on the planned constitution amendments. The group is spearheaded by Banlu Siripanich, Prof Aree Walyasewi, Pairoj Ningsanont, and Vithoon Ungprapan. The National Health Foundation has been selected as a venue for releasing the statement. On the eve of the planned statement yesterday, NHF secretary-general Somsak Chunharas slammed the government for its proposal to revise the charter. In his statement ''Ensuring Sustainability for the Nation, not for Cronies'', Dr Somsak said it's a shame the government is only concerned about amending the charter and not doing anything to develop and promote the policies from which the nation truly stands to benefit. He said the planned amendments, if as far reaching as desired, would only reduce the accountability of politicians and the political parties. ''The government is determined to make itself and its own people, instead of the country, sustainable. ''It is fully focusing its resources and efforts on the amendments which appear to make political parties immune to punishment, no matter how unscrupulous their actions are,'' read the statement. </blockquote> <a href="http://www.bangkokpost.com/050508_News/05May2008_news09.php">Former coup drafters</a>: <blockquote>Vicha Mahakun, deputy president of the Constitution Drafting Committee and member of the National Counter Corruption Commission, brushed aside doubts about the legitimacy of the 2007 charter. ''Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej's charge that the charter is written to get rid of his [People Power] party is not true,'' he said. Modern political science gives emphasis to participatory democracy in addition to representative democracy. ''His Majesty the King states in the charter that he has endorsed the constitution in accordance with the outcome of the public referendum. So the 2007 charter is the first under participatory democracy. ''The People Power party's attempt to change the constitution is meeting with strong opposition because it runs against the public's wishes.'' Mr Vicha said it is not difficult to seek a revision of the constitution, which stipulates 50,000 people can sign and file a petition for constitutional amendment. ''But does the PPP ask the public or academics? Even though voters were required to vote 'yes' or 'no' in the referendum, each of the articles was widely debated during public hearings. ''Public hearings were organised in each of the regions on the flaws in the 1997 constitution. Independent public agencies were also asked to provide input. ''We did not force them or coerce them to accept what we drafted. We talked to them and asked for their reasons, why they disagreed with our proposals. ... ''I do not argue that the PPP has a public commitment to revise the constitution. But as a representative, does it have the legitimacy to change what has undergone a direct democratic process like a referendum? ''Can the PPP show proof that those who voted for the constitution simply wanted elections so that their MPs would amend the charter later?'' he said. </blockquote> BP: Didn't the PPP campaign on amending the constitution and then voters voted for PPP? Didn't they public choose to endorse a constitution which enabled politicians on their own to amend it? You can't say the constitution is what the people wanted or comes from the people and then deny the government has the power to amend the constitution in accordance with Section 291. The constitution specifically provides that politicians amend the constitution. A referendum can carry moral weight although it is legally meaningless. A referendum would not stop criticism of the amendments, but it would overcome some of the current criticisms. PPP can always fall back on the argument, let the people decide. PPP, unless they make a meal of the amendment, will almost certainly be able to win a referendumBangkok Pundithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00120891606340974105noreply@blogger.com