Reform before poll divides NRC

Member of the NRC’s Political Reform committee and chair of

the NRC’s sub-panel on Laws Reform of Laws and Justice Reform committee

 

Amorn, who has been working intensively on reforming laws and justice, prefers to see the reform completed before an election. He said he still cannot put his trust on politicians and the current political system to complete the task.

“I advocate the reform before an election idea because those coming to power via an election would not want to work on the reforms, which would have rather unfavourable effects for them.”

The reformers have been proposing 37 reform agendas covering key issues including politics, judicial administration, police, and corruption. They are complicated, he said, and politicians could have a difficult time when the reform takes effect. For example, they would have to declare their assets and expenditures.

“So, we are not very certain if they would sincerely do it as we have proposed in the blueprint,” Amorn said, stressing the reform work would better be worked on by non-politicians.

Besides, an election itself needs to be reformed and perfected before it could be put for use to help recruit decent people to work in Parliament and in the cabinet.

“It is not about having an election or not having one, it’s about having an effective electoral system,” Amorn remarked.

He went on, that first of all they would have to redesign the system to ensure that those coming to power were “decent” as well as “capable”.

“Those coming to work for the people and represent them must be those who are ‘truly decent’ and ‘truly capable’. I’m saying it is not only a clever man we are looking for but also a capable man,” he said.

The election can take place whenever, Amorn said, “But the electoral system that would serve such a purpose of recruitment is the most important thing.”

“To achieve that, first we have to reform,” he said.

With regards to the timeframe proposed for completing the reform work – two years – the reformer said it was the time needed for any law to be passed by members of Parliament.

“There has been a research conducted with support from Parliament indicating it takes roughly 800 days to pass a law. That’s two years,” he explained.

He said that during that time, they would make a law that would facilitate the reform process and pass it. That is why they were proposing the two-year timeframe, he said. Finally, it is the people’s decision in the national plebiscite, he stressed.

Prasarn Marukpitak 

Chair of the NRC’s sub-panel on Public Participation, Learning, and Reconciliation Reform of the Political Reform Committee.

 

Prasarn, who has been through political crises since the bloodshed of 1973, views reform as a process that can progress without any political conditions, even an election. So, with a clear goal, he prefers to see the reform take its course while an election takes place as planned.

“I question the idea of reform before election because it is unclear and baseless,” said Prasarn. “To set the condition of reform before election, we have to ask: ‘what reform are we talking about?’ And ‘what will its yield?” the reformer explained.

In Prasarn’s view, reform is a long-term work and needs time to evolve. “[Reform] is the work that takes a long period of time and perhaps has no end. We can’t say at some point ‘okay, we’re done.’ Rather, it has to be undergone again and again and again and so on,” Prasarn said.

Prasarn cited the police and the education reform as an example, saying the process had been taking place for more than two decades. It was ongoing and had not finished yet. “Reform is not like instant noodles, which you can put in a microwave for a couple of minutes and say it’s done and ready to eat,” he said, adding no promise could be made about when reform would be completed.

“So, my view is that if you cannot tell what the reform is or what effects it will bring, confusion will emerge,” the reformer remarked.

Prasarn said reform actually took place all the time, even right now. [And] even if there is an election, it does not mean the reform ceases to continue. It goes on, he stressed, because it had been stipulated in the Organic Law that reform must be undertaken. He stated further that such an organic law was being made by collecting all ideas reflected by the 18 committees under the NRC. This very law would be the mechanism that materialised the reform, he explained.

Besides the law, there were the 37 reform agendas that would be passed on to the government. And then they would be forwarded to involved agencies for implementation that would be in accordance with how the NRC had planned it, he said.

And then, a new reform council would be set up to drive the reform, in addition to the organic law and the blueprint covering 37 reform agendas, as mentioned.

“The three elements would direct the reform, regardless of the election. It is not that it would not continue when the election takes place, and vice versa. Both [election and reform] can go together,” Prasarn stressed.

He went on that the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) had set up the road map and was determined to follow it. It had been already roughly scheduled when an election must take place, when a referendum must be held, and when the new government must take office. 

“So, if there is to be any change, it should not deviate too much from the original plan – or too much that the people cannot accept it,” he said, referring to the two-year reform plan proposed by some NRC members.

“To the notion of ‘reform before an election,’ the NCPO might fall prey. The world is looking at us to see when we will have an election and return to democracy,” he said.