• 
• 

Published on August 19, 2007

The "yes" vote is probably the easiest choice if you happen to still support the leaders of the September 19, 2006 coup.

Together with Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, the coup leaders have publicly promised a quick return to a democratic rule if this new charter is passed, with the next general election already scheduled for December of this year.

Charter drafters have insisted that this "new baby" corrects the weaknesses inherent in the previous 1997 charter, which led to the monopoly and abuse of state power, political mismanagement and a lack of transparency, good governance and ethics, as well as a failure to scrutinise the use of state power and inadequate protection of people's rights and freedoms.

Hence, the 2007 version addresses these problems on four fronts, namely the protection, promotion and expansion of rights and freedoms; the reduction of concentration of power and the elimination of abuses; making politics more transparent, moral and ethical; and increasing the effectiveness of the scrutiny process by making independent bodies stronger and more efficient.

However, if you do not go along with this line of argument, then you may consider the criticisms raised by those who will vote against the draft charter. First of all, critics said they reject the origin of this draft charter. Second, they're not satisfied with the drafting process, which was not as democratic as the process that led to the 1997 charter.

Third, the contents of the draft 2007 charter are undemocratic. Jon Ungpakorn, a non-governmental organisation leader and former Bangkok senator, says there are some good points in the new charter but the bad ones are greater in number.

For example, a good point in the draft charter is that it would prevent government from being able to bypass Parliament if it wanted to sign international treaties with foreign countries such as free-trade agreements.

Some of the bad points include the appointment, rather than the election, of as many as half of the members of the new Senate; the excessive judicial power in nominating and endorsing members of independent bodies such as the National Counter Corruption Commission and the Election Commission; and Section 309 of the draft, which would grant amnesty to coup-makers and prolong the powers of the Council for National Security (CNS).

On the new Senate, people in each of the 76 provinces would be empowered to elect just one senator, while another 74 senators would be appointed, so it's not democratic. In addition, members of the judiciary would become very powerful, as top judges would dominate the process to appoint members of independent bodies to serve as checks and balances.

On Section 309, it's clear that the powers of members of the CNS, who staged the coup, would be intact under the new charter. Together with the plan to enact a new piece of national security legislation, the CNS would be able to hold on to its powers even after the new government takes office. A worst-case scenario would see the 2007 charter sail though overwhelmingly with, say, the "yes" vote as high as 70 per cent, with the "no" vote at 30 per cent or less. In that case, it would be very difficult to amend the contents of the new charter any time soon after it is passed since such a big win would also signify a widespread endorsement of the coup and the public's wish to see the military's role in politics continue.

There would be a greater chance that General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, the CNS chief, would jump into politics right after his retirement next month or that new political parties would arise comprising just the military's top brass if the vote is overwhelmingly positive.

On the other hand, the public would have a better chance of seeing the 2007 charter revised soon in order to remove undemocratic elements if the "yes" vote is modest, say, 55 or 60 per cent versus 40 or 45 per cent. General Sonthi and the military's top brass would also be more humble concerning prospects of entering politics or playing the game behind the scenes.

In the end, whether you vote yes or no, the general election will still take place. Ironically, those who have been undecided are probably trapped in a dilemma, viewing a "yes" vote as an indicator of tacit support for the military, while seeing a "no" vote" as a show of support for ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra since there is no option to abstain on the ballot.

However, if you're still undecided, a good choice is to vote "no" or to return an empty ballot so that we all send a clear message to the military.

 Nophakhun Limsamarnphun

 nop1122@yahoo.com