'No' voices get louder as NRC set to decide on fate of draft charter today

The Sunday Nation talked to several reformers representing different interest groups sitting on 18 reform committees covering politics, business, social and non-profit organisations, bureaucratic system, the media, academics, justice system and legal reform, anti-corruption, local administration and provinces, and military and police.

Their voices on the charter have differed not only on the content, but also the consequences after the voting, although many have claimed they shared common goal of “national interests.”

High-profile reformer and NRC whip spokesman Wanchai Sornsiri yesterday estimated that about 150 NRC members would vote against the charter, as they viewed the draft as problematic that could lead to a new conflict. The charter needs half of the NRC votes, or 124, to be passed under the interim charter. 

According to Ekarat Changlao, NRC members representing Khon Kaen province, provincial reformers have increasingly spoken out against the charter. On Friday, he claimed that some 95 per cent of the council members from the provinces – especially those from the Northeast – planned to vote against it because of the controversial points concerning the National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Committee and outsider prime minister.

The interest groups from politics and academics, which could be seen sitting in the political reforms committee, meanwhile, have remained divided with some academics like Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, chair of the committee, saying no to the charter, while the others – some of them former senators – staying positive, including Prasarn Marukpitak.

A reformer from the justice system and legal reform committee, Udom Fuangfung, on the other hand, said firmly that he would vote ‘No’ today. He believed the charter would create conflict. He said it would be better for the council to reject the charter rather than waste money 0holding a national referendum.

“In my field of expertise – combating corruption – the charter doesn’t serve the purpose whatsoever. Plus, there are too many flaws that don’t serve the purpose of bringing peace and reconciliation as intended either,” said Udom.

A few days ago, Seri Suwannapanont, former charter drafter and chair of the justice system and legal reform committee had said that he had discussed with colleagues from different groups and it seems that the “No” votes will outnumber the “Yes” votes. Reacting to a rumour that some members from military groups had tried to convince their colleagues to vote “No”, Seri dismissed the speculation, saying it would be impossible as the National Council for Peace and Order and the government had publicly supported the charter. 

Opposition to the charter also came from an environment figure like former National Park chief Damrong Pideth. He said the charter did not have a balance between rights of the people and those of other living organisms as well as natural resources. He said the charter gave too much importance to rights of indigenous people, while leaving out rights of forests and wildlife to co-exist.

Ekachai Srivilas, a member from the political reforms panel and a few social-based committees, said he would vote “Yes” because a lot of effort as well as resources had been put into drafting the Constitution and he did not want to see it go in vain.

Ekachai said he felt rather “indifferent” about the details of the charter. Resolution lies with the people, not the Constitution, he said. Ekachai said after meeting colleagues from some groups he learned that the votes from both camps were neck and neck.

Asked if he viewed the draft charter good, Ekachai said, “It depends on the ‘gauge’. If democracy is taken as a gauge, then this can’t be good. But if it’s about conflict resolution, perhaps yes it’s possibly okay. Still, this doesn’t mean all the disputes would go away though.”

Wasant Paileeklee, a veteran journalist of the media reform committee, showed satisfaction saying overall he found more reasons to like the charter than dislike it.

“What I like about the draft is how it gives people the freedom and rights. Also, it deals a lot with rooting out corruption,” he said.

However, he went on to say, “I know it is also controversial – the strategic committee. But it [the committee] is advantageous too because it would work to push the reform and to establish reconciliation.”

NRC member from the business sector Sonthirat Sonthijirawong who also chairs the Thai SMEs Association, said he was still undecided, as he found the charter very controversial.

“I think there are two prominent points about this draft Constitution – the provision of the mechanism to establish peace and the continuous strategy that could push the country forward,” he pointed when added that it was rather undemocratic and could be disappointing to many people. Thus, he was still weighing, he said.

Meanwhile, the charter drafters remained positive.

Constitutional Drafting Committee (CDC) member Kobsak Pootrakul said he believed all the 21 drafters would approve the charter today, although there had been debates during the meeting. After all, it’s their work, he said adding that “Why would we go against our own work? We should be proud, shouldn’t we?”

“Overall, I am happy about the draft. It would be a shame if it were to be rejected by the reform council. I wish it would pass because this charter will really empower the people unlike anything before it.”

Prominent charter drafters like CDC chairman Borwornsak Uwanno and CDC spokesperson Kamnoon Sidhisamarn reiterated that the CDC had done its best and they would accept whatever the result.