Don't bite off more than you can chew

Despite its parliamentary supremacy, the government is facing what could be a formidable campaign to challenge the scheme’s legality and constitutionality. In addition to that, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s status could be under threat due to a controversial asset report and how she behaved herself during the recent Bangkok gubernatorial election. Last but not least, an international court verdict on the potentially explosive Preah Vihear Temple conflict between Thailand and Cambodia is a few months away.

In this kind of situation, political wisdom calls for any government with common sense to avoid creating unnecessary trouble. Is drafting a brand-new Constitution necessary? This question stems from a possibly trickier question: Is drafting a brand-new Constitution constitutional? The constitutional question aside, amending the current charter is a huge political risk. The issue could bring thousands or tens of thousands of people onto the street, fuel the already inflammatory political divide and aggravate existing problems that have the potential to be affected by politics. In fact, the planned charter overhaul carries such gigantic political risk that a number of analysts believe the government has only been using it to divert attention from the Bt2-trillion borrowing plan.

Speculation that the government has been using the long-delayed charter revamp plan as a decoy has subsided lately. The government and advocates of constitutional changes have seemed hell-bent on making it happen as soon as they possibly can. Prime Minister Yingluck herself has urged the Constitution Court to “end the impasse”, saying the country would not be able to move forward unless Thailand has a charter that can “restore” justice.

Truth is, Thailand won’t be able to move forward if the political divide runs deeper, and one way to deepen the divide is introducing constitutional changes that benefit one camp more than the other. Yingluck may argue that the present charter is already doing that, but while the present charter is not bringing protesters onto the streets, abolishing it or drastically rewriting it most likely will.

It will be hard for Yingluck to convince the sceptical portion of the Thai public who suspect that charter changes and amnesty are meant primarily to help her brother, Thaksin. And it will be hard for her government to advocate a “reconciliation” that will keep both the red shirts and the other side happy. To one side, “justice” means Thaksin is legally punished. To the other side, “justice” is punishing those responsible for the Ratchaprasong “massacre”.

The government may have been buoyed by the fact that it has managed to implement one controversial agenda to another.  The free computer tablet scheme has been implemented despite serious questions being asked, and so have the drastic minimum wage hike and the rice price-pledging programme. Now, the Bt2-trillion borrowing plan has cleared its first major hurdle.

Those issues, however, are within the scope of the government’s democratic mandate. Although the staggering borrowing scheme may face constitutional problems, the government can argue that it concerns infrastructure and thus public interest. Whether that is a strong argument, it can soften the blow. The same can’t be said about constitutional or legal plans that could positively affect the prime minister’s brother. Apart from all the pressing local and economic issues, the deep South is continuing to burn and peace negotiations, or attempts to hold talks to be exact, are at a fledging stage. It’s fair to ask why the Yingluck government can’t wait for a better time to tackle the political divide whose many aspects may be better left untouched at least for now. If Yingluck is serious about “moving the country forward”, she must rethink long and hard.