New hurdle for charter bid
A split opposition makes change to the constitution difficult, writes Nattaya Chetchotiros
Efforts to seek charter amendments face more hurdles after two government coalition partners locked horns over who should head a proposed House committee to study charter changes.
Constitutional amendment is one of the 12 priorities detailed in the policy statement which the Prayut Chan-o-cha administration declared before parliament.
The Democrat Party even insisted on a charter change as a precondition for joining the Palang Pracharath Party-led (PPRP) coalition.
The issue has become a thorn in the side of the government, now the House is moving to appoint a special panel to study charter change.
Political observers believe the Democrats are serious about pushing the issue, after its MPs this week backed their exleader Abhisit Vejjajiva to sit on the committee under its quota, even though Mr Abhisit has resigned as an MP.
It is widely speculated that Mr Abhisit — a vocal advocate of changes to the 2017 charter — will be nominated as the chairman. Reacting to the speculation, PPRP MP for Nakhon Sawan, Weerakorn Khamprakob, raised objections to Mr Abhisit heading the House committee.
Suthin Khlangsaeng, the opposition chief whip and Pheu Thai Party MP for Maha Sarakham, has voiced support for Mr Abhisit, saying the former Democrat leader is the most qualified candidate for the post, when compared with the PPRP’s proposed candidates.
He said even though opposition parties have yet to reach a resolution, they seem to agree that Mr Abhisit is a suitable choice given his stance on charter amendment.
As a representative of the Democrat Party, he is expected to work as a gobetween for the government and the opposition as well, said Mr Suthin.
“No matter how hard the PPRP objects [to charter change], the party can’t resist public demands for changes and the Democrat’s commitment to the issue,” he said.
According to Mr Suthin, the Democrat Party’s decision to name Mr Abhisit as its representative, along with Democrat chief adviser Chuan Leekpai’s stance against the 2017 charter, indicate how seriously the party will
pursue charter amendments.
Mr Chuan recently told a public forum that he did not vote for the 2017 charter at the referendum.
Mr Abhisit told the Bangkok Post yesterday that he has yet to decide whether to join the House committee.
“If the core party [the PPRP] is opposed to charter amendments, I think there is no point in me working on the committee,” he said.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha yesterday distanced himself from the debate. “It’s an affair of the House which I can’t intervene in. The committee has to work for the public’s interest — and it’s not a oneday job,” he said.
Jade Donavanik, former adviser to the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC), said signs of objection from some government MPs and opposition parties could make the charter rewrite a difficult task.
He said that without support from government MPs and the Senate, the bid looks set to fail. He said the
Bhumjaithai Party, another coalition partner, is not committed to amending the charter.
Mr Jade said flaws in the charter should be listed for revision while the “good parts” — including chapters on the state, the monarchy, and civil liberties — should not be touched.
According to Mr Jade, elements involving the Senate and the election system will be fiercely debated.
Senator Somchai Sawaengkarn told the Bangkok Post that he is opposed to efforts to revise Section 256 of the charter, which says a charter amendment requires the support of at least one-third all 250 senators, or 84.
Mr Somchai likened Section 256 to a key to a house, saying if the key was handed over to political parties, they could then do anything to the charter.
“A referendum is needed if parties want to make it easier to pursue charter changes,” he said.
Despite having a democraticallyelected government after five years of military rule, a political expert says progress is hard to spot in Thai politics, as the country remains bogged down by the power struggle between liberals and conservatives.
In a special interview with the Bangkok Post, Chulalongkorn University political scientist Surachart Bamrungsuk said that as long as those factions continue to vie for power, longterm political stability will remain out of reach.
However, Mr Surachart said the power struggle which defines the current period differs from any other struggle in the past, as new technology — social media, for example — plays an increasingly prominent role.
He also said the political system which took shape following the March 24 election represents a step backwards.
“The system that took shape [following the election] isn’t a ‘quasi democracy’ similar to the model which emerged under Prem Tinsulanonda,” he said.
“What emerged instead is a ‘quasi dictatorship,’ as the coup-makers retain their positions in the overall power structure. This, effectively renders the opposition’s role ineffective.”
Mr Surachart went on to say that Thailand’s prospects of progressing towards a more liberal society — let alone a fully-fledged democracy — are dim.
According to him, several factors are at play, including the current constitution — which allows senators to vote alongside MPs to choose the next prime minister — and the government’s 20-year national strategy.
Critics have warned in the past that such a rigid plan, which dictates the direction of the nation’s development, will effectively become a “straitjacket” for future governments, as it constrains their ability to make decisions and adapt to changing circumstances.
Just as a restructured Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc) took charge of the nation’s security affairs after the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) was disbanded, the military should reconsider its post-election role, Mr Surachart said.
“The immediate task at hand is to figure out a way to curtail the power of the authoritarian regime, which remains — albeit in disguise — even after the election,” he said.
While the Pheu Thai-led opposition and the coalition headed by the Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) are roughly on equal ground when it comes to the number of MPs in the House,
Mr Surachart said the opposition is restricted by provisions in the charter on several issues which requires the Senate’s vote — such as choosing the prime minister, and the national strategy.
“It is still a quasi-NCPO regime,” he said. “Section 44 may be gone, but everything else is still there.”
The expert said as the contest for power is starting to move away from the streets and into parliament, he hopes this bodes well for the future of the parliamentary system in Thailand.
That said, he also said that simply moving the debate into the House will not solve the problem, as the opposition will remain dissatisfied by their disadvantaged position under the constitution, which was designed by the NCPO in the first place.
When asked to comment on the sudden emergence of the Future Forward Party (FFP) — which immediately commanded a large following among Thai youths due to the pull of its promises and its leaders’ public image — Mr Surachart said the fact that the FFP won most votes in provinces where universities are located is a telling sign.
“The big question now, is how long will the party be able to ride on their wave of popularity,” Mr Surachart said, adding the result of the by-election in Nakhon Pathom’s constituency 5 on Oct 24 should be considered a pointer to the public’s mood.
He made the comments days before the by-election, in which the FFP was defeated.
“Generally speaking, the government’s mistakes are gains for the opposition. That said, each party has its own set of problems to deal with,” said Mr Surachart.
To date, FFP leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit’s fate as an MP still hangs in the balance, as he remains suspended by the Constitutional Court, pending a court ruling on whether he breached media-shareholding rules when he registered to run in the election back in February.
Mr Surachart said that despite having only a razor-thin majority in parliament, the government does not need to resort to heavy-handed tactics to get its way.
Instead, he said, the government’s survival depends on its ability to control its smaller, coalition partners and court support from “cobras” — renegade politicians from the opposition.
“History has taught us that most coalition governments were brought down by internal strife, not by the opposition,” he said.
“Even with the slimmest of margins, the government can survive if it has
CHULALONGKORN UNIVERSITY POLITICAL SCIENTIST
control over these elements.”
To ensure its survival, the government must cater more to the needs of the urban, middle class.
“This demographic group is among the most conservative within our society, and many has even ended up supporting the NCPO after five years under its rule,” he said.
Having said all that, he said, he believes that army chief, Gen Apirat Kongsompong, will go on to become a key player in the country’s post-coup politics — especially after his lecture at the Royal Thai Army Headquarters last week.
In his lecture, Gen Apirat accused some politicians, academics and “old communist elements” of using “hybrid warfare” to undermine the country and the monarchy.
Gen Apirat also alleged collusion between unidentified “communist” politicians and “extreme left” academics who had studied abroad.
He claimed communists are still planning to depose the monarchy and are using social media to spread fake news in order to steer Thailand towards communism.
“The lecture was intended to send out a signal to the conservatives, that he is ready to become the next prime minister and deal with such threats,” Mr Surachart said.
Mr Surachart said Thailand needs to position itself in a way that restores investors’ confidence.
“After the polls, we took one step forward, but then three steps backwards, which bodes ill for efforts to restore stability,” he said.
“The question that remains is, when the military will end its role in politics?” said Mr Surachart.
“Should we let the military take charge of everything, or should we take politics back to the parliament?’’
‘‘ It is still a quasi-NCPO regime. Section 44 may be gone, but everything else is still there.
SURACHART BAMRUNGSUK