Chang Noi
The Nation
Fear and loathing of elective democracy is the dominant theme of the new draft constitution.
Never again, the drafters hope, should real power be based upon the people's vote.
The reshaping of parliament is designed to produce fractious, corrupt politics that will condemn itself. The draft brings back the system of multi-member constituencies under which election candidates are in effect competing just as much against their own party colleagues as against their party opponents. Parties will be weakened. Elections will become more violent, with more deaths of canvassers caught in the increased complexity of local factionalism.
The 90-day rule is in effect abandoned. Wholesale merger of parties is banned, but the prelude to elections will revert to the old pattern of musical chairs and pre-election auctions of candidates with potential to win. To add to the fragmentation, the draft even explicitly absolves MPs from voting along party lines. The two-term limit for a prime minister will encourage corruption. Parliament will revert to the pattern of many small factions loosely aggregated into weak parties and constantly rearranged by money and opportunism into fragile coalition governments.
Sanan, Barnharn, Sanoh, Chavalit(if he pulls something together) are probably all rubbing their grubby little hands together, because now they can get back on the corruption gravy train they got kicked off during the Thaksin years.
So, in return for dumping Thaksin, we will get back a lovely mixture of the corrupt Chatichai years and the instability of the early 90's, which all culminated in coups and economic crises. I'm looking forward to the rest of the decade already.
Money quote:
In the eye of the drafters, this does not matter because parliament does not really matter. One of the most striking features of the charter is the expansion in size and scope of the section on Directive Principles of Fundamental State Policies. If you think that title has a whiff of documents emerging from the supreme council of some totalitarian state, you might have the right idea. In the old constitution, these principles were brief and vague. Nobody honestly took much notice of them. In this draft, this section has expanded from one page to eight. The coverage extends across security, administration, religion, society, education, culture, law, judicial matters, foreign affairs, economy, land, natural resources, environment, science, intellectual property and labour. The government is obliged to ensure that its policy statement presented to parliament accords with these principles, and is obliged to make an annual report to parliament on its progress
Most political observers predicted this would happen. Chang Noi and his buddy, Anek Laothamatas, predicted it back when I called them bigoted elitists here. I may have been wrong about the small pachyderm but I was right about Anek, who was probably whispering into Squadron Leader Prasong's ear and giving him a massage during all those drafting meetings.
So unelected, unaccountable judges will be calling the shots and protecting us from the dumb masses.
I think it is funny that so many got upset when they heard that there might be a provision for an unelected PM, yet a whole body of parliament, the Senate, will be unelected. And traditional legislative and executive powers will be handed over to the judiciary, which has no democratic accountability at all.
And Thai judges are not exactly philosopher kings, so I think we all may be in deep do do.
Bangkok Pundit goes on a nice rant about Judiocracy here.
10 comments:
Just take a look at Santi Thakral, former President of the Supreme Court of Thailand and now a member of the King's Privy Council.
This guy was publicly accused several times of trafficking in child prostitutes and obstructing victim recovery efforts. And guess who is in charge of investigating claims of judicial misconduct? None other than the Supreme Court itself. Yet the King chose this monster to be his personal advisor....
To anonymous: If you have evidence of the 'monster's' misdeeds, why not petition the king?
It might bring about some much needed change.
Fonzi - I don't oppose a non elected PM and I am neutral on the judges power issue because I think there is just as much chance (probably more) that appointed judges would serve the interests of me (a nobody) as well as a bunch of politicians 'elected' by the masses.
That's just the way I see things - this time can you please call me an elitist instead of a racist.
I think anonymous sourced his information from this dodgy website. I don't see any sources collaborating the accusations made by 'johnthomasgo' -- this is potentially libelous material.
Naphat: The site you linked makes for very depressing reading.
If it's true then we can write off politicians, judges, privy councillors, the military, the police, government bureaucrats, and businessmen as fit rulers for the country.
Where to now?
Journalists? (over Fonzi's dead body)
Academics or Teachers? (also over Fonzi's dead body?)
That leaves Taxi Drivers & Farmers as the front runners in my book, but ... didn't they elect the last guy!!!
Hobby-
Even though we disagree, I consider you well-informed.
I'm surprised that you didn't know that judiciary is the most corrupt and least accountable branch of the Thai government, and it has always been corrupt, going back hundreds of years.
To reform the problems in Thailand, it has to first start with the journalists and the academics, which is why I am hardest on them.
The situation wouldn't seem hopeless if those two groups actually did their jobs like they are supposed to, which means exposing the scared cows for what they are and instilling democratic values into the populace.
Fonzi: Yes, perhaps I was a little naive in thinking most of the 'deals' were already done before things even got to the courts.
On top of the journalists and academics needing to do a better job, I also think the electorate need to be more discerning and think beyond self interest.
I have to emphasize again how unreliable and unsourced the information in that website is. The main accusation of Judge Santi is uncollaborated, his accusers never identified. In the main article, statistics cited ("In nine cases out of ten, Thai lawyers cheat their clients.") are frankly ludicrious. My opinion is that anonymous's source of information is not to be trusted.
hobby, I would petition the King to get rid of that monster of a Privy Counselor. But guess who screens the King's petitions? The Privy Council.
In Thailand, the Supreme Court and the Privy Council are effectively above the law. They answer to the King, and to the King alone.
Naphat: Point taken.
anonymous: If there really was evidence I don't think the privy council, or even the king, could stop a public outcry - especially if the evidence was leaked to all media including foreign.
I agree with Naphat. I found the site from a google search. The writer should write for the Manager. No evidence, just allegations.
Post a Comment