No backing for 'super minister' proposal

Constitution Drafting Committee chairman Borwornsak Uwanno dismissed the proposal, saying it had been floated by one person and did not come from King Prajadhipok’s Institute. Borwornsak also serves as the institute’s secretary-general.
The proposal was raised by Assoc Prof Panitan Wattanayagorn during the “Thai Democracy in Decades: Power Balance” seminar at the institute on Saturday.
Panitan said the super minister would have the ultimate power, above the other branches of power, as they served as a “public governance or national governance” figure that exercised power when the other branches were in conflict.
The proposal follows more than 10 years of political strife, when pressure groups responded to the country meeting a political dead-end by calling on those with extra-constitutional powers or royal powers to find a quick fix to problems.
At times pressure groups sought guidance and assistance from those with special powers in a bid to find solutions to ending a constitutional or a political crisis.
National Reform Council member Paiboon Nititawan also dismissed the proposal, saying the judicial, legislative and administrative model struck a balance as stipulated in many previous charters and was already effective provided the charter was enforced strictly.
He said having a super minister would never happen because the idea was unsuitable for the country and it was unlikely the public would accept it. Despite that, he said the Constitution Drafting Committee would discuss the idea.
Former Pheu Thai Party MP Somkid Chuakong also disagreed with the proposal, insisting it would create an overlapping power that would bring negative consequences to the balance of power and state administration.
He said he supported the proposal to revamp independent agencies, which linked with the power of the people.
The public, he said, should be allowed to cross-check the work of independent agencies and take them to court if they abuse their power while members of agencies must make asset declarations.
Paiboon, meanwhile, has voiced his opposition to holding a public referendum on the new charter, which is yet to be drafted. He dismissed the cited reason for the need for a referendum – that it would act as a shield to increase the charter’s longevity.
“The longevity of the charter depends on whether its essence truly benefits the public and the country,” he said, adding that a referendum may be appropriate for certain provisions of the charter.
“This should happen after the charter has been in force for some time and problems arise. Then it is suitable to hold a public referendum if such provisions need to be altered or scrapped,” he said.
Responding to those who say a public referendum translates to public participation in the reform process, Paiboon insists public hearings could be used to get people involved in the process.