To our charter drafters, 'we' means them

To our charter drafters, 'we' means them

On a radio news show with a pair of boot-licking hosts (no shortage of them), a guest speaker phoned in recently to talk about the future. His future? Mine, yours, ours? Never mind. The guest was one of the oracles to sit on the Charter Drafting Committee (CDC), and he sounded smart, well-meaning, with just a slight hint of the Chosen One's god-given arrogance. Which is the best we can expect from those who are handpicked in dark corridors, plucked like vintage grapes by the generals due to their supposed virtue, intelligence, loyalty, servitude, sycophancy, bloodline — anything except a connection with the Evil One.

Anyway, he talked about the future. And the future means the new constitution that he'll help write along with 35 other CDC wise men. "We have to think what kind of future we'd like our children to live in," he said on the radio three mornings ago. He said a few things more about how legal technicalities can be used to accommodate this roadmap for our future, which was sensible enough in theory, though the keywords in his talk, to my ears, were "we" and "our". We this, We that, Our this, Our that. Who, I just wonder, are we?

In the speaker's righteous mind (more righteous than all of us combined because he's in the CDC and we're not) the "we" means all of us, regardless of our belief and inclination. And I'm sure the man truly believes that he's doing all of this for "us". His karma, his pure thought, his incorruptible mind, or whateveryoucallit, has put him in that rightful place with a fat salary. The blind spot of a good man is that everyone else isn't half as good, and humanity is a flock of stupid sheep that needs to be put on a leash (except when a good man joins an international summit, which often inspires sheepishness on his part).

So his "we" is altruistic and all-encompassing. To me and maybe a few others out there, however, the "we" and "our" sound like just the 36 members of the elite CDC drafters who've arrived not by the people's mandate but by gun salute, and who'll now chart the course of our future. Twenty from the magnificent 36 come from the National Reform Council (NRC, who got there by arbitrary picking, too), and the rest will be proposed by the National Legislative Assembly, the cabinet and the junta. The deadline for the first draft is April 17, 2015, before it'll go through rewriting, the NRC, then be submitted for royal endorsement in September next year. Good luck.

Earlier this week, the NRC voted down the proposal to allow "outsiders" to sit in on the drafting process (and I thought we're all in the "we"). By doing that, the NRC confirmed the insular mindset that everyone suspected they dearly hold — not that these "outsiders" could've made much difference given that every road leads back to the coup-makers anyway. And not to mention the fact that the "we" in the CDC makes no pretense to include members from all parties in the conflict. In times when the Dear Leader hogs reconciliation, when harmony is handcuffed, the most divisive word, accidentally or not, is "we".

There is much speculation about the new constitution, or "the future" in which we and our kids have to live, enjoy or endure. Among the predictions: a clear separation between the administrative and legislative branches of power, arguably to prevent "parliamentary dictatorship", which is of course more malevolent than plain ol' dictatorship and gunpoint democracy; also, a darker read of the future believes that the new constitution, scaffolding on the military-authored interim charter being used now, will exterminate the last remnants of the Shinawatra and Pheu Thai influences through a lifetime ban on politicians involved in corruption. Of course, that bunch invented the concept of corruption and thus is unworthy to be part of the splendid "we".

What kind of future would we like our children to live in? A cheat-free, kickback-free, war-free, Ebola-free, politician-free one, yes, and no sane man would wish otherwise (as no sane man would wish to hear about a phantom account stuck under a general's passbook). But as the virtuous drafters preach about "we" and "our", they should realise that the future doesn't belong just to those who appointed them to their rightful place with a fat salary. The Chosen Ones can't monopolise the future, and as they set out to dictate our destiny, I'm sure they'd never want their children to live in a place ruled by bullies, gunslingers, thought police, and "good men" who don't have accountability — good men to get paid by tax money but don't have to answer to the people. The reforms should start with the shepherd, not the sheep. Only then will your "we" become our "we".


Kong Rithdee is Deputy Life Editor, Bangkok Post.

Kong Rithdee

Bangkok Post columnist

Kong Rithdee is a Bangkok Post columnist. He has written about films for 18 years with the Bangkok Post and other publications, and is one of the most prominent writers on cinema in the region.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (17)