• 
• 

Published on August 4, 2007

Proponents and opponents of the junta-sponsored draft constitution debated half a dozen issues on television yesterday.

Advocates chose to play the politics-of-fear card while detractors called on voters "to do what is right".

The draft-backers invoked politics of fear at the end of the debate when two key drafters and one leading member of the junta-appointed Constitution Drafting Assembly were given an opportunity to summarise their points.

"This [draft] constitution is most vital for a concrete return of people's power," said Charan Phakdithanakul, vice chairman of the drafting committee. "The benefits of accepting this draft are its helping to end junta [rule] immediately. The Council for National Security will cease to exist."

Watch the report from Nation Channel, click right button to play/stop

For the other camp, the People's Network for Election closing message was delivered by constitution law expert Vorachaet Phakeerat of Thammasat University.

"Endorsing this charter is equal to endorsing the legitimacy of illegitimate actions," Vorachaet said, referring to the coup and the junta-dominated drafting process.

"In practice, if we reject this draft charter, do you really think [the junta] will dare revive something which is even worse than the 2007 draft charter? If they dare do such a thing, political conflict will persist.

"The power to determine the constitution has to be in the hands of the people and rejecting this draft charter is the way out for society."

The three-hour debate saw at least half a dozen issues raised; some about specific issues, others about the bigger picture and one about what the draft will lead to if endorsed.

Historian Nidhi Eiwsriwong, one of the three opponents, said saying yes would usher in a new era of bureaucratic rule.

"Elected governments will become weak. It will be like pre-1997 [politics]. A return to politicking and ministers unable to be ordered to do things [by a leading coalition partner] ... [the government] will be under the control of the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is not known for either honesty or an ability to solve crises."

But Charan argued the draft, if endorsed, would lead to a bureaucracy "free of interference from [politicians]" and that the same could be said of independent state organisations.

Constitution Drafting Committee secretary Somkid Lertpaitoon added people would have more rights under the charter.

It makes it easier for the public to recall politicians, amend the constitution and propose new legislation, he said.

Nidhi argued this was "a mere paper improvement" and could not be put into practice. Even if passing new laws was more accessible, those supporting them would lose out as long as the news media was controlled by the state and the elite.

Increasing the role of the judiciary in politics - especially selecting future members of independent organisations - was debated.

Proponents said judges were best suited for the job because they were trustworthy and impartial.

Opponents said judges and the justice system would be dragged into politics and lead to the eventual erosion of the judiciary.

Assembly member and former senator Chermsak Pinthong defended a selected Senate, saying an elected upper house would lead to a majority of members being of poor quality and politicised.

Opponents said it betrayed the people's right to choose their representatives.

Somkid argued many countries - the United Kingdom, India, Canada and Italy - had appointed upper houses and that "doesn't make them undemocratic".

Vorachaet responded by saying the House of Lords had no power to remove politicians.

Amnesty for the junta for the coup under Article 309 of the draft was a hot issue.

Vorachaet accused charter drafters of undermining the logic of a constitution. It is supposed to be a supreme law, he said. "[The amnesty] has ruined the status of the supreme law."

Somkid responded by saying it made little difference since the interim constitution drafted by the junta gave it amnesty.

Both camps claim the public to be on their side on multi-member constituencies.

Proponents said the public supported the idea while opponents cast doubt on that.

Chaturon Chaisang, leader of the Thai Rak Thai group, lashed out at the junta, saying the public must not support a draft charter from dictators.

"A constitution which stems from a coup cannot lead to democracy," he said. "We shouldn't even call this [draft] a charter. It doesn't promote democracy but clearly aids dictatorship and bureaucratic rule."

 Despite the debate's comparison of the draft with the 1997 People's Constitution, the junta has failed to commit itself to what charter it will invoke if the new document is defeated at a referendum, it was said.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation