Amendments serve Pheu Thai: Abhisit

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has opposed changes to the Constitution on the grounds they are designed to help the ruling party cling to power rather than improve the political system

.Abhisit said the changes, if approved, would enhance the government’s leverage and serve vested interests.
“I am concerned that the charter amendments might deepen the political conflict instead of bringing about reconciliation,” he said.
In outlining his opposition, he said Article 190 – relating to the need for Parliament to vet international agreements – might be seen as problematic, but this could be rectified with the enactment of an organic law to clarify areas where there is confusion.
On the proposal to remove punishment by party dissolution, he said this would not solve problems, but encourage electoral cheats. The party dissolution clause was designed to prevent and reform dirty politicking, so dropping it would negate this political reform, Abhisit said.
He said the coalition also had an ulterior motive to enhance its control over Parliament via a revamp of the Senate. The move – to require that all members of the Upper House be elected – would ensure the chamber was filled with government lapdogs.
“If the Democrats waiver in their principles to uphold democracy and transparency, then the country has no hope of righting the wrong,” he said.
On Facebook, former Thai Rak Thai executive Chaturon Chaisang yesterday posted that the change to Article 68 should lead to a charter rewrite eventually.
“Nobody can guarantee that the change to Article 68 this time won’t open ways for the rewrite of the whole charter pending the third reading in Parliament. It is a fact. Actually it should be confirmed that once Article 68 is changed, in the future the third reading will be passed so that the whole Constitution-drafting process can move forward,” he wrote.
In the morning, Pheu Thai MP Samart Kaewmeechai took the floor to spell out reasons for seeking to amend the negotiating framework for international agreements under Article 190. Samart said it was embarrassing that the government could not sign an agreement with China and Laos to ensure safety on the Mekong because the issue had not been vetted by Parliament.
He said Article 190 should be enforced only on negotiations that could affect national sovereignty.
Currently, the charter also requires Parliament to consider agreements related to issues that could widely affect the country’s economic and social security; or would have a prominent binding effect on trade, finance and investment, or the national budget, before the government can sign an agreement.
Democrat MP Rachada Dhnadirek said that in an age of talks about free-trade agreements, requiring only that agreements related to territory and state sovereignty need to be considered by the Parliament was not enough. It would allow loopholes that could hurt Thai farmers and small and medium-sized entrepreneurs. That was the reason Article 190 was in the 2007 Constitution.
Rachada also asked why government MPs and senators who proposed the change to the article sought to end a requirement that agreements relating to areas outside Thai territory but under Thai sovereignty receive parliamentary approval.
Meanwhile, Senator Jetn Sirathranont said he suspected the proposed amendments were designed with an ulterior motive – to eventually overhaul the entire charter.
Jetn said the push to amend Article 190 was suspicious, as if the government was trying to deny checks on deals such as one relating to oil and gas in the Gulf of Thailand in the “overlapping” maritime zone between Thailand and Cambodia.
In a related development, advocacy group FTA Watch issued a statement opposing the move to amend Article 190. It said the proposed change would reduce people’s participation in the democratic process. The real intent for revising Article 190, it said, was to keep the public from having a say in policies that would have an impact on their lives.
Senator Weerawit Kongsak, meanwhile, suggested a change in the wording in the proposed amendments. In regard to Article 68, Weerawit said there should be a deadline for the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) to complete a review of matters relating to alleged attempts to overthrow democratic rule. If the OAG failed to meet the deadline, then people should be entitled to file a direct petition to the Constitution Court, he said.
In regard to the proposal to cancel the punishment of party dissolution, he said he agreed with the move although party executives should be held accountable in lieu of their party.
He went on to say the proposed revamp of the Senate should take effect after the end of their current term ends.