• 
• 

Published on August 18, 2007

The pro camp said the draft charter, if endorsed tomorrow, would bring back democracy while opponents warned that accepting it would bring about a form of 'guided democracy' where citizens are ruled over by the military and the bureaucracy.

The two-hour debate, jointly organised by the People's Network for Election (P-Net) and state-controlled television Channel 9, gave opportunities to three representatives from both sides to briefly present their arguments and answer 10 questions.

Somchai Preechasilpakul, dean of Chiang Mai University's Faculty of Law, fired the first salvo against the draft charter by saying that those opposing the charter were being unfairly branded enemies of the state and takers of bribes. He slammed the referendum as a fraud because most people simply did not have time to read the whole contents of the draft and warned that the charter would weaken electoral politics.

"They don't trust the public ... and believe that judges are good angels who ought to be controlling politicians. This charter will promote autocratic politics and will legalise the coup d'etat," he said.

The rebuttal came from Choochai Supawongse, deputy chairman of the junta-appointed Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC).  Choochai said last September's coup, while regrettable, was an outcome of the abusive regime of Thaksin Shinawatra. He added that the televised debate yesterday would not have taken place if Thaksin were in power.

"In the limited time we had during the drafting process, it was more participatory than any of the previous charters," he said.

"The new draft charter will guarantee rights and liberties of citizens from cradle to grave and reduce interference in the so-called independent organisations under the constitution," he added.

Choochai listed social welfare and rights guarantees under the draft charter to cover workers, elderly people and the handicapped.

Former senator Jon Ungphakorn, another member of the anti-draft-charter camp, pointed out that progressive tax, land reform and the social-safety net for the unemployed had not been included.

On the Parliamentary system, CDC member Paiboon Warahapaitoon attacked the abrogated 1997 charter for limiting only those with university degrees to run for Parliament. He also defended the appointment by a small committee of nearly half the Upper House under the draft charter as a way of ensuring "progress and balance" in Thai politics.

On the other side of the debate, Constitution expert and 1997 charter writer, Kanin Boonsuwan warned that people would be losing their right to elect their own representatives through a half-appointed Senate system.

"The 2007 draft charter tries to push away people's right to be responsible for choosing their own representatives," said Jon, adding that the new Senate under the draft charter will still require that members of the Upper House hold a university degree. He attacked the system of an appointed Senate as undemocratic. "This is not democracy but a patronage system."

Meanwhile, Somchai questioned the practicality of the reduced 50,000 signatures of citizens required to launch an impeachment process against politicians by saying that in reality, if the appointed Senate opposed the move, the impeachment process would be almost meaningless.

The draft-charter-writers defended the appointed Senate and members of the so-called independent organisations under the Constitution by a small seven-person committee, saying that at least the president of the Lower House, and leader of the opposition - both elected by the people - will be a part of that committee. Opponents of the draft charter called the idea of giving a small committee, comprising mostly of judges, the power to appoint as "an insult to the people". They added that the heart of the draft charter is a deep distrust of ordinary citizens in favour of a small elite from the courts who are far removed from the masses.

However, Thammasat University's dean of Political Science Faculty and charter-writer Nakarin Maektrierat, rejected the criticism that the charter is distrustful of the common man.

Nakarin said the stipulation in the draft for a fund to be set up to develop citizen politics is proof of its support for peoples' participation in politics.

The debate also raised the issue of Article 309, which grant de facto amnesty for the military junta's past and future actions. Somchai called it the most "bizarre amnesty" and probably the world's only such future amnesty and urged the public to "go out and show their force" by voting against it, adding that accepting it would be tantamount to accepting the September coup and the coup makers.

Paiboon defended Article 309 by saying that nowhere did the word "amnesty" or "coup" exist in the article. "Coup related legislations have been part of Thai political tradition for the past 50 years," he added.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation