Article 44's many violations

I thank The Nation for juxtaposing Article 44 of the provisional Constitution with Article 16 of the French 1958 Constitution. This enables us to study the “double death” article and see where it deviates from the French model.

A significant difference is that the French model requires the state to be “under serious and immediate threat” before the president can take action. He is also required to formally consult his executive, legislative and judicial colleagues.

The Thai version imposes no such restrictions. The head of the NCPO (call him “the Leader” for conciseness) is required only to be “of the opinion” that action is needed.

I hope the Thai version of Article 44 is more coherent than its English translation. In a land where thousands of starving English teachers would jump at the chance to vet such a document, it is unbelievable to find the wording so clumsy.

It starts off badly, with the phrase “In the case...” Only one case?  Why not “In cases...”? Then, towards the end of a very long sentence, the Leader is granted “the powers to make any order to disrupt or suppress”. These two verbs have no object. To disrupt or suppress what? Adding “any such activity”, referring to the long litany of sins listed earlier, would be helpful. Also, “disrupt or suppress” is awkward, as is the idea of the Leader “making any order”. All of this dances around the intended meaning, which is to empower the Leader to crush any activity he doesn’t like. 

I could go on, and I guess I will. What’s this business of the Leader being empowered to take action “outside the Kingdom”? Does this mean it’s okay for him to send helicopters to England, no doubt escorted by a squadron of fighter jets, to grab Giles Ungpakorn and whisk him back to Thailand for trial?

Like much legalistic writing, Article 44 violates a major rule of modern English prose: “Avoid long sentences.” Conciseness, combined with clarity, should be the rule. Any competent English teacher could do a better job of writing the English version of Article 44. Even a pedant like me might manage it. As proof, I offer the following version:

“The Leader is empowered to take any action he deems necessary to maintain the integrity of the state and ensure the welfare of its citizens regardless of any pre-existing laws.”

That’s 30 words instead of the 107-word original, a saving of 77 words.

When this blue-ribbon and much-hyped committee can’t come up with a Constitution that translates into clear English, one is compelled to question its competence.

Ye Olde Pedant