Sensible advice from Chalerm and Somsak

Published: 17 Jul 2012 at 15.08
Online news: Opinion

Bravo to Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung for his sensible recommendation that the Pheu Thai Party should amend the constitution section by section, as suggested by the Constitution Court, rather than setting up a constitution drafting assembly to write a new charter.

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung (Photo by Apichart Jinakul)

The veteran politician said amending the charter section by section would take less time than rewriting the whole charter by the CDA and, moreover, there would be no need for a public referendum.

This article is older than 60 days, which we reserve for our premium members only.You can subscribe to our premium member subscription, here.

Forum

Your comments

whatajoke
Post : 1,760
Send message

Discussion 18 : 18 Jul 2012 at 08.0318
Post this to my Facebook
It's nice to see a conciliatory tone all round, let's not forget that Chalerm has a reputation as a hawk and a fighter, so I'm a little skeptical of his tactic here. Perhaps Veera could outline in his next piece, the exact pros and cons, of a charter re-write versus amendments. Which will take longer, what is off limits in an amendment, will amendments open a retroactive annulment to whitewash Thaksin, can the powers of the courts be diminished through amendment. If they are controversial should they be put, collectively, to a referendum point by point. Thing is, Peau Thai aren't entirely doing this specifically for the betterment of the democratic process.

As to the CDA, it is flawed, having 1 representative from every province is not a true proportional representation of the population (10 million in Bangkok versus 300,000 in Mukdahan), no guesses who benefits most with 30 provinces in Isarn and the North, then Peua Thai's 55% in parliament helps them to select the other 20 CDAs. Tell me the resulting panel won't be bi-partisan.
Like dislike 6 people liked / 1 people disliked this comment
johninbkk
Post : 2,930
Send message

Discussion 17 : 18 Jul 2012 at 01.3417
Post this to my Facebook
bikeme 15 - "in the PTP's version, they have the right to decide the majority of CDA members, leading to a junta scenario where one group controls the writing process."
Not entirely true. PTP proposes 99 CDA members, comprising 77 elected individuals, each representing one of Thailand's provinces, and 22 appointed by parliament (nearly matching the 1997 CDA). AV proposed 125 elected members, and 25 appointed by parliament.

"Amending it step by step forces each change to be revealed to the public and debated in Parliament before being enacted, thus allowing a chance for outside input."
You are missing the point of the CDA - opinions from around the country were continually requested and debated throughout the entire process of the 1997 CDA over 7 years. The 1997 Constitution draft, after being written by the CDA, was also put forth to parliament for a final vote (97% voted yes).
Like dislike 5 people liked / 8 people disliked this comment
antitahaan
Post : 173
Send message

Discussion 16 : 18 Jul 2012 at 01.2716
Post this to my Facebook
The constitutional court must not obstruct and intervene into the Parliament.
The constitutional court must recieve the decision of the Representative democracy.
Like dislike 6 people liked / 10 people disliked this comment
bikeme
Post : 1,110
Send message

Discussion 15 : 18 Jul 2012 at 01.0115
Post this to my Facebook
d11 Johninbkk - In theory a CDA would be a good idea, but in the PTP's version, they have the right to decide the majority of CDA members, leading to a junta scenario where one group controls the writing process.

Amending it step by step forces each change to be revealed to the public and debated in Parliament before being enacted, thus allowing a chance for outside input. There is no need to rush the process, something worth doing should be done carefully and with much thought. Neither the 2007 nor 1997 constitutions were perfect, and rushing to replace a flawed version with a previous flawed version is not the answer. Take what we have then fine tune it for a better long lasting version.
Like dislike 11 people liked / 3 people disliked this comment
amazed
Post : 577
Send message

Discussion 14 : 17 Jul 2012 at 23.2714
Post this to my Facebook
I agree with Disc. 11 and would add that to my comment. As others point out, the whole constitution does not need amending anyway. Anything considered should pertain to and benefit the country and not address a very narrow subject or group. That's not the purpose of a NATIONAL constitution.
Like dislike 12 people liked / 1 people disliked this comment
Just-1-Voice
Post : 240
Send message

Discussion 13 : 17 Jul 2012 at 22.5913
Post this to my Facebook
RE: D-12 The Democrats might consider changing their name to POP - Permanent Opposition Party - seeing as how they haven't won an election in over 20 years. And, as long as they are seen by the majority of Thais as being the party for the Rich & Elites, it might be another 20 before they can win one. Also, they firmly believe that "Opposition Party" means to oppose everything the ruling party puts up, no matter what it is, which includes things which might actually benefit Thais and Thailand.
Like dislike 5 people liked / 12 people disliked this comment
amazed
Post : 577
Send message

Discussion 12 : 17 Jul 2012 at 20.5112
Post this to my Facebook
Perhaps PT is experiencing a maturity and awakening to the position they presently hold. Whatever the reason, I too commend the voices of reason but also add that the Dems , too, have a responsibility with the positon they hold. And, that is not to obstruct every recommendation that is put forth by PT. The opposition (whoever they be, at any time), must take a more patriotic view of what the term," opposition", implies and be willing to work, at the very least, to pass justifiable changes that benefit to country. Perhaps it would at least sound better if we changed the term, "opposition", to "democratic support" group and give a more positive spin on what their true role should be.
Like dislike 11 people liked / 4 people disliked this comment
johninbkk
Post : 2,930
Send message

Discussion 11 : 17 Jul 2012 at 20.4511
Post this to my Facebook
If the Constitution is amended section by section, that means only PTP MPs would have a chance to write the amendments. And they would only need a 51% majority to pass anything they'd like. A CDA would allow the entire populace to participate and discuss the amendments (instead of limited to only members of Parliament), and PTP would have significantly less control over what laws were written and passed.

Can the author explain why he is against a CDA? Amending section by section would not be any different than the current process for amending section 291, of which he refers to as 'ramming'. I remind the author that the CDA for the 1997 Constitution took nearly 7 years to complete their job - that is not 'ramming'.
Like dislike 9 people liked / 11 people disliked this comment
englishjon
Post : 404
Send message

Discussion 10 : 17 Jul 2012 at 20.3710
Post this to my Facebook
I think credit is being given where credit is not due.

Do you really think they have done this from the goodness of their hearts when only a few weeks ago they tried to force it through in the midst of uproar ?. Strange also how their attitudes did an about face along with the skyper in Dubai.

I'm sure there is another plot brewing and this is to lull everyone into a false sense of security.

I have followed Chalerms comments on this closely and his warped view of democracy means he doesn't care one bit what the people think.
Like dislike 19 people liked / 3 people disliked this comment
dicktano
Post : 10
Send message

Discussion 9 : 17 Jul 2012 at 19.189
Post this to my Facebook
What if gov amend a section so they can bypass CC everytime they amend another section. If CC accept that of course....
Like dislike 2 people liked / 14 people disliked this comment

1 2 Next Last

Sensible advice from Chalerm and Somsak | Bangkok Post: opinion