Public supports greater judicial role, Wicha says
Critics of the new constitution should heed public sentiment before attacking provisions that give the judiciary a greater role in the selection of office holders for independent organisations, charter drafter Wicha Mahakhun said yesterday.
"The call for a greater involvement of the judiciary has been attributed to public despair at existing political institutions and people then pinning their hopes on the courts," he said. Wicha said the first draft of the new constitution had factored in public opinion on ways to overcome last year's leadership crisis. According to the opinions submitted, people wanted the courts to intervene and end political tampering in the system of checks and balances, he said. Draft provisions were designed to assign the courts as a last resort to dispense justice in electoral and political disputes, and to pre-empt political interference in independent organisations, he said. "Critics have no justification to attempt to mislead the public into believing that the judiciary will become mired in the political rivalry and become a politicised institution." Rebutting criticism of the provision for an appointed Senate, he said past events had proved that an elected Senate could not stay free from partisanship. "The vast majority of elected senators opted to serve as a power base for the ruling party." The upper chamber was supposed to act as a political rudder but turned out to be the puppet of the House. "Proponents of the elected Senate should review their stand because the selection system is not 'evil' in comparison to the electoral process," he said, arguing that appointments based on merit had made many positive contributions to the country. He said critics of the draft should offer alternative ideas instead of trying to reject the whole document. Somkid Lertpaitoon, another charter drafter, said public opinions on the first draft would be reviewed for inclusion in the new constitution. "I can confirm that no charter drafter has any preconceived ideas about the final draft and that everyone is willing to revise the draft to best serve the country," he said. Drafting Assembly member Chirmsak Pinthong viewed the draft as an improvement on flawed mechanisms in the 1997 Constitution. The planned switch to an appointed Senate reflected the lesson learnt from the elected version failing to meet public expectations. He also voiced support for the provision allowing a panel of 11 concerned parties to resolve national political crises, rather than risk a power seizure. He only thought the Om-budsman could play a bigger role.
|
