Reform blueprint might just be a red herring to divert public attention

But then Premier Prayut Chan-o-cha was quick to point out that the government and the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) would not influence the reform panel, which will be given total freedom to engage in debates and discussion regarding the 11 areas of proposed reform.
Even then, the “blueprint” is highly interesting, not least because it reflects some “new thoughts” on “old issues”. And some of the “old issues” include ways and means to make “democracy” work in practice for Thailand without reverting to the prolonged conflicts that have plagued the country for a decade or so.
Should the prime minister be popularly elected? Does the next PM have to be an elected MP? What should be the minimum age of an eligible voter? How many Houses should there be in the new legislative structure?
These are some of the questions that will inevitably be raised in the deliberations of the NRC. The common concern is apparently how to prevent opportunistic politicians from gaining power and throwing the whole reform agenda down the drain once again.
The reform blueprint is said to represent a wide range of views gleaned from a variety of discussion groups trying to find a new formula that will make for a sustainable return to a democratic political process.
The choices offered the NRC members are numerous. Some suggestions may even be controversial – such as the proposal that the minimum voting age should be raised from 18 to 20. But then, there is also the proposal that the bicameral system might not be sufficient.
What about a third legislative body known as the “People’s Council”, comprising representatives from all walks of life, to strike a balance with the power of the elected House of Representatives and the Senate?
Hidden somewhere in the blueprint is the proposal to introduce a system of “primaries” to screen candidates for national elections. The primary voting system would specify that any candidate would have to be endorsed by at least 200 eligible voters from that constituency. This is supposed to ensure that only “good people” with clean records recognised by the people who know the candidates best would be allowed to run in the election.
Members of the NRC will undoubtedly also be debating the proposed provisions to do away with MPs’ immunity from arrest while Parliament is in session. Election and anti-corruption courts are also incorporated in the “blueprint”.
Each major new clause will be the subject of heated debate, no doubt, raising fears that the one-year deadline for the reform councillors to reach conclusions that will form a significant part of the new Constitution will not be sufficient.
The prospects are either for a rush job to finish on time for the NRC – or a job left undone when the deadline is reached. In either case, Article 37 of the interim charter will rear its ugly head. It stipulates that in the event of the deadline being missed or the draft of the new constitution being rejected, everything goes back to Square One: A new NRC will be selected and the whole process will begin all over again.
Cynics are beginning to wonder whether the reform blueprint might in fact be nothing more than a red herring to put all of them off the scent.