BURNING ISSUE

DIVISIVE ISSUES COULD STALL CHARTER

Contentious proposals like reducing the number of MPs may rally vested interests to mobilise public against referendum

Amid a flood of debate about the new charter, it is not too early to ask if the constitution would pass a national referendum.

The drafting process attracted more attention when National Legislative Assembly (NLA) member Prasong Soonsiri was elected chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC).

Prasong was criticised as being a representative of the Council for National Security (CNS), who was sent to control the content of the new charter and to deal with the ongoing political gamesmanship.

The controversy was followed by a surprising proposal by Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, who suggested reducing the number of MPs from 500 to 300, to show his desire to solve the vote-buying problem.

Surayud later said it was not his idea but had been suggested by others. However, as the idea was mouthed by him, it made little sense to assume that he had only conveyed the proposal without supporting it.

While the idea was opposed by former MPs from all political parties on the grounds that it would not be a good solution to vote-buying, it was welcomed by some members of the charter-drafting panel.

CDC secretary Somkid Lertpaitoon said many countries with larger populations have fewer MPs than Thailand. He suggested reducing the number of constituency MPs from 400 to 300 while keeping 100 party-list MPs.

Meanwhile, Charan Phakdithanakul, CDC deputy chairman, said party-list MPs should vanish from Thailand's electoral system. It looked like a presidential system and encouraged some politicians to be power maniacs, he commented.

He also said party-list MPs had lost touch with voters and did not know their real needs. In other words, he added, party-list MPs had only money - which was enough to become MPs or ministers.

While the idea to reduce the number of MPs sounded reasonable, the timing was not appropriate. The proposal has increased the risk that the constitution draft might not pass

a national referendum in the end.

Not only does the panel have a duty to draft the new charter but it also has to make the public accept the draft so that it can be approved by a referendum.

The only way to achieve this goal is for the panel to avoid any issues that may lead to divided opinions in society.

Reducing the number of MPs is one of those issues, which might lead to objections to the draft.

As it would reduce the chances of many politicians taking up seats in parliament, they might manipulate voters in their constituencies to reject the constitution draft in the referendum.

Those opposing the proposal might suddenly join forces with the "old power", who would absolutely reject the draft, no matter how the final version looked. At the very least, they could discredit the CNS by attacking the draft as a charter that had come from the coup.

If the referendum rejects the draft, the present interim constitution empowers the CNS to choose any of the previous constitutions and adjust it.

Apart from the issue of reducing the number of MPs, the selection of a prime minister would be another contentious point which might decide the fate of the draft.

If the panel keeps the issue open by writing that a prime minister could be elected or appointed, the draft certainly would not pass the referendum.

The country is still in conflict. The only way to restore normalcy is to return democracy to Thailand by having a general election as soon as possible.

The new charter will be the clearest indicator about the September coup's objective. Was the coup staged for retaining democracy or just part of a power play?

Somroutai Sapsomboon

The Nation
Thu, February 1, 2007