New charter ‘will be tough on graft’

ANOTHER CRUCIAL phase has arrived in Thai politics as the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) has completed more than 95 per cent of the new constitution during its seven-day camp in Petchaburi’s Cha-am District last week, leaving only the transitory provisions chapter to be deliberated on and written in Bangkok. And in less than two weeks, the complete initial draft will be made available to the public.

Now, all eyes are on the canon because of its potential status as the supreme law, which could dictate so much in Thai politics. The political fate of the country, as well as the fate of so many individuals, depend on this 261-article social code written by the panel led by Meechai Ruchupan, which in an unprecedented move was given authority to root out corruption as well as chart a course for reconciliation.

Following the instructions of the 2014 interim charter, which set out to give the country a fresh start after a long period of turmoil, the draft aims at tackling corruption in the public sector. Under the new constitution, political office holders and civil servants would face stricter scrutiny and tight regulations about being disqualified from office. Among the new rules is the stipulation that officials who are found guilty of electoral fraud or are found to have misused public money would face lifetime political bans.

The drafters have also empowered independent agencies as well as the Constitutional Court. The panel agreed that the Election Commission (EC), the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and the Auditor-General’s Office could jointly issue warnings to the Cabinet when its policies or practices potentially posed threats to the country. Although it is not binding on the government to heed the warning, it would be held legally responsible for its mistakes.

In addition, while the drafters have not yet settled whether the Constitutional Court should be turned into a “super body”, the court now has the final authority on constitutional arguments, in a provision that replaces Article 7 of past constitutions, which paves the way for a royally-appointed prime minister.

Moreover, the court will have great powers to steer the country through times of crisis – powers similar to those previously suggested for the National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Committee or “crisis panel” that has since been rejected.

All these mechanisms have been heavily criticised by veteran political figures who say they weaken politics and future elected bodies.

Well-known red-shirt Weng Tojirakarn, for example, has given this draft the title of “Constitution of the Four Powers”, referring to the Constitutional Court and the three agencies empowered to admonish the government.

“This is not a democratic constitution because the supreme power is not in the people’s hands,” Weng said. “It has entirely been deformed. Those elected representatives of the people from the entire country would be violated, interferred with, discriminated against and destroyed by independent agencies in many ways.”

Others have voiced similar complaints that these mechanisms will be inconvenient and hinder the government from fulfilling its tasks. 

Meechai addressed those arguments during a press conference yesterday. “This charter will be tough on corruption. If curbing corruption is going to be inconvenient for them, then let it. If the government is not corrupt or does not violate the constitution as it has, then there should not be any inconvenience.”

Another of the most attention-capturing points in the new draft are the “National Assembly” stipulations that encompass issues involving the electoral system, the selection of parliamentarians and the procedures involved in legislation – all measures to achieve reconciliation, according to Meechai. Amid a chorus of opposition voices from political parties, including major players such as the Democrats and Pheu Thai, drafters have resolved to stick to their original proposals of a single-ballot system, the PM being selected from a list of three candidates, and that senators will be “indirectly elected”.

Meechai said these elements would subtly bring about “reconciliation” by giving rights to political minorities. Unlike the previous winner-take-all system, the new system would offer a compromise to voters whose candidates lose the election in their constituencies by counting the votes for their national party. Previously, votes for a losing candidate were discounted.

“Every single vote cast in an election must matter. There would be no more of the ‘winner-take-all’ thing. Now the minority votes will be regarded and respected, as everyone has called for,” said Meechai, a noted lawyer with extensive experience in constitutional drafting. A similar principle would apply to constitutional amendments, which would have to be approved not only by a majority of parliament but also by a proportion of the MPs from the minority. 

Meechai said drafters did not want the charter to be amended too easily on the grounds that election victors could then change the provisions meant to curb corruption. However, while the CDC was still in Cha-am, Noppadon Pattama, a key figure in the Shinawatra political camp, criticised the resolution.

“If only one person from one party disagrees with the amendment, it cannot be carried out ... That is having the minority ride on the majority’s neck,” Noppadon said. “The drafters don’t listen to us when all parties are voicing [favour] for a two-ballot electoral system, but they want us to listen to all parties when amending a constitution.” 

Noppadon, who has been a member of the parliamentary majority in several governments, said the proposed political system was unusual and unlike any system found in other countries, but he stopped short of commenting on whether the new system would help to bring about reconciliation, and peace to the country.