Charter intrigue deepens

Thaksin praised Watana for the latter’s “great” charter debate. With the compliment still ringing in everyone’s ears, the MP was quoted in a Thai-language newspaper’s front-page headline news story as saying that the country’s new constitution needed virtually to rein in the Con-stitution Court and the Administra-tive Court. The term “dissolution” was used, although Watana envisaged the two courts being reincarnated under the wings of the Supreme Court.

Watana’s so-called constitutional “blueprint” produces two big ironies. First, it follows repeated attempts by the Yingluck Shinawatra government and the Pheu Thai Party to distance themselves from charter reform. Their charter amendments, which would transfer the task of writing up a new charter from Parliament to an elected drafting assembly, are in fact designed to guard the ruling camp against charges of having a malicious constitutional agenda.

Second, the Constitution Court and Administrative Court originated from the 1997 “People’s Constitution”, which Thaksin and his supporters always speak of in high regard. The two courts were essential parts of a checks-and-balances mechanism introduced in the 1997 constitution and passed on into the current charter, which is abhorred by the Thaksin camp. To downgrade the two courts, therefore, would be more of a contempt against the 1997 charter than the current one.

“We may be starting to see the true colours of this so-called charter reform,” Democrat Jurin Laksanavisit quipped yesterday. His party’s leader, Abhisit Vejjajiva, also expressed dismay, warning the ruling side that it must not try to take down every institution perceived as a threat to its political or business interests.

After the Constitution Court acquitted Thaksin of share concealment in 2001 despite obvious evidence of his business empire’s shares being held by his servants in massive numbers, it handed down rulings that hampered his attempts to return to power after the 2006 coup. 

The Administrative Court has not been popular with the Thaksin camp, either, after verdicts that disrupted ambitious business policies affecting the likes of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand and PTT, formerly the Petroleum Authority of Thailand. While the Constitution Court dissolved two Thaksin-affiliated political parties and let the Democrats off the hook in a party-dissolution case, the Administrative Court rattled the Democrat-led government with a ruling that virtually froze vast sections of the Map Ta Phut industrial estate for months.

Watana’s “blueprint” will add more tension to the charter-reform process, which is already fragile because of speculation that the ruling camp would exert power over the elected “drafters” and abolish all legal consequences of the 2006 coup. Such consequences include probes into Thaksin’s staggering wealth and the subsequent seizure of his assets.

The Yingluck government and the Pheu Thai Party understandably will not lend more weight to Watana’s “blueprint”, although many analysts say that what Thaksin said during his weekend Skype-in spoke volumes. The ruling party yesterday “urged” its MPs to avoid publicising their ideas on how the new charter should look.

“Don’t jump to a conclusion,” Chalerm Yoobamrung told reporters, repeating his remark made during the charter-bills debate that speculation about the new constitution would be an insult to the drafting assembly, which is yet to be elected.

If Watana is part of a plan to influence the drafters, it will remain to be seen whether having him come out so openly to propose such controversial ideas was a wise move. The “blueprint” could put the drafting assembly in an awkward situation, as considering such proposals would subject the drafters to the label of being a government tool. If the assembly were to ignore criticism and embrace the “blueprint”, Thaksin’s political opponents would find fresh ammunition with which to attack the ruling camp, and such a showdown might have unpredictable consequences.

The “drunk or not drunk” episode involving some government politicians during last week’s charter-bills debate was just a side-show blown out of proportion. The real issue, analysts believe, is what the drafting assembly will do once it is formed. And the final question will be which charter spirit – the one belonging to the 1997 charter that Thaksin so publicly advocates, or the one belonging to the existing, much-criticised Constitution – will be repelled.

 

Some points made by Pheu Thai party-list MP and legal expert Watana Muangsook on the 2007 Constitution: 

_ Loss of balance of power – the administrative and legislative branches cannot 

examine the judicial branch. 

_ Lacking proper checks-and-balances for independent agencies – members can be impeached in a vote by three-fifths of the Senate, but appointed senators are selected 

by the presidents of the Supreme Court, Constitution Court and National Anti-Corruption Commission.

_ The way members of independent organisations perform their roles is not uniform – in a case where senators are authorised to scrutinise laws, they can be selected for the task. But when they are called on to impeach elected MPs and ministers, they too must have been elected to office.

_ Some legal clauses are against principles of international law – for example, the ruling of the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders is considered final and does not allow an appeal to a higher tribunal while, according to international legal principles, a person has the right to appeal. 

_ In an interview with Thai-language newspaper Matichon, Watana said the Constitution Court and the Administrative Court should be dissolved and replaced by newly established divisions in the Supreme Court.