Current charter was approved by majority
I have no problem with changing our Constitution since the Constitution Court has ruled that the 2007 edition allows amendment by article. But the entire process must be transparent, including motives.
Thus, when Prime Minister Yingluck states, “We want to have a people’s charter – one that is in line with democracy”, a field of red flags should fly, for the current Constitution, which she’s fighting tooth and nail to revise, was endorsed by a majority of voters in a public referendum. Although I wish there had been much more pre-election debate on the issues, if a relatively free and fair election is not democratic, I don’t know what is.
She dismisses any innuendo about the changes being to help one person, namely her brother. If your motives are as pure as driven snow, lady, then could you explicitly state your party’s position on Article 309? Would you let the Assets Examination Committee’s findings, which formed the basis of your brother’s conviction, stand?
As John N Mitchell said, “Watch what we do, not what we say.” You, ma’am, speak of democracy, yet you want to revise a charter approved by a majority of voters in a public referendum. If you were Pinocchio, your nose would have grown a metre. What’s up your sleeve? Isn’t it to help one man? Even if Thaksin’s conviction was politically motivated and wrong, why aren’t you as up in arms to right the wrongful deaths at, say, Tak Bai, Krue Se and Nong Chik and during your brother’s anti-drug war? Are you mixing up your role as sister with that of prime minister?
Burin Kantabutra
Bangkok
