NOT SO FAIR

Commentary: Thongbai Thongpao

While taking a taxi this week, I saw a yellow booklet of the draft constitution on the seat beside the driver. I asked: "Have you read the constitution?" The driver, who is in his 40s, said he was in the process.

"Will you cast the vote on the referendum?" I probed further.

"Definitely. My hometown is in Ang Thong, but I will cast my vote for sure."

I asked him how he would decide his vote, and he had a tentative idea even though he hadn't finished reading.

" I disagree with those who seized the ruling power by force and appointed their own men to draft the charter. In my view, the 1997 charter is good enough, if only we just plug the loopholes that allow politicians to exploit their power and cause damage to the country.

"As I've read it, I have the impression that the drafters are not impartial. There are some provisions that treat some people unfairly," he continued.

In the same morning, I attended a meeting at the Office of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). A commissioner said: "The future of the NHRC now hangs in the balance. When the drafting of the new charter began, there was a call for the merging of the NHRC with ombudsmen. Faced with opposition, the writers agreed to back down but not before they downsized and cut the mandate of the NHRC and changed the method of commissioner selection. We're uncertain what the stance of the new government towards the NHRC is, but it seems we're hardly a favourite of the powers-that-be."

The two viewpoints I heard that morning prompted me to re-read the draft charter. With regard to the MP election, the method will be changed so that the country is divided into eight constituencies. This is a needlessly complicated and cumbersome process because people are already quite familiar with the old method. The vote count will also take place at the poll stations instead of at the constituency centres. Counting votes at the poll stations has proved to be a fatal undertaking in the past and it should be avoided at all costs.

One senator will be elected to represent each province, with the remainder appointed to fill the required 150 seats. As we have 75 provinces right now, half will be appointed. The one-senator-per-province approach is unfair to large provinces like Bangkok whose population tops 5-6 million. These large provinces will be represented by one senator each, the same as Ranong, which has a little over 180,000 people (Section 111-112).

The appointment of half of the senators also insults the intelligence of the people. Notwithstanding the fact that more than half of the population might have graduated with Bachelor's degrees, the new charter hands the power to appoint these senators to the chiefs of 7 institutions instead of letting the people decide for themselves who should represent them (Section 113).

Inequality and discrimination are also reflected in the determination of the qualifications of senator and MP candidates.

The following persons are barred from running for senator ship: parents, spouses and children of an MP or holder of a political position; members or holders of positions in a political party and those who have resigned less than five years before the application date; and MPs and former MPs who left office less than five years prior (Section 115). Senators or former senators who left office less than two years prior are also barred from running for MPs (Section 102).

These provisions are a breach of civil rights and human-rights principles and show the bias of the writers who apparently went at great lengths to bar a number of Thais from entering politics.

Another controversial issue involves selection committees, whether they are to appoint senators (Section 113), election commissioners, (Section 231), auditors (Section 243 and 252), anti-corruption commissioners (Section 246) and human-rights commissioners (Section 256). They comprise essentially the same people - chiefs of the Constitutional Court , Election Commission, ombudsmen, Anti-Corruption Commission, Audit Commission, the House of Representatives, the Opposition leader, a supreme-court elected judge, and an administrative-court elected justice. It seems the writers of the charter do not trust the judgement of the people and have faith only in judges or those in the judicial branch.

Under this charter, the chiefs of the Supreme Court, Supreme Administrative Court and Constitutional Court have an unprecedented heavy burden. This is worrisome because by their original roles they are supposed to be impartial as they determine the fate of other people.