People’s Constitution™, not Chuan’s | 27.03.06
Whatever happens in the next couple of weeks and months, Thailand is likely to have a new constitution (No. 18?) in a year or so. Now may be a good time to look back at how this current one — once hailed as the “People’s Constitution” by the very people now clamoring to tear it apart — came to be.
The international media’s official story can be summed up in one sentence: Ironically, telecoms billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra was best-positioned to capitalize on the democratic reforms put in place by the Chuan government. Go ahead and search in your favorite international journal, and you’ll find a variation on this theme. Nothing too specific, of course, but all the nuances necessary are there for you to know who the good guys and the bad guys are.
But is it true?
Not according to Amara (Amorn) Raksasataya, one of the dissenting constitutional judges who ruled against Mr. Thaksin in the asset concealment case. In his poorly-written but quite informative paper titled “The Making of the People’s Constitution” (.doc), Prime Minister Chuan not only failed to push ahead the constitutional reform; he pushed it back.
The [1992] general election led to a new government under Primier [sic] Chuan Leekpai. With regard to amending the constitution, a special parliamentary committee comprising representatives of political parties and outside experts, numbering 45 persons, was set up to study ways and meaus [sic] of amending the constitution.
The Democrats, the majority party and especially Prime Minister Chuan were not enthusiastic. The committee found that a totally new constitution could not be written under the existing constitution. It then sent 46 points for change to the Prime Minister, who requested that the number should be reduced. Eventually, the committee agreed to propose only 8 points. The Prime Minister had instead ordered a creation of another committee to improve and develop political party system. The House Speaker, a senior democrat who was approached by the Prime Minister, also established democracy development committee chaired by Dr. Praves [Prawese] Wasi. The committee was well funded to conduct research and study and to recommend ways and means for political reform. The committee report was sent to the House Speaker on April 28, 1996.
Because of inaction of the Prime Minister with regard to the special parliamentary committee, calls from opposition politicians and some senators for amending the constitution had continued unabated. A new special parliamentary committee of 45, with 15 only from government members, was set up to collect all points for change. It turned out to be extensive amendments, involving 187 articles. The amendments, coming into force on February 10, 1995, were the fifth change of the constitution.
These extensive amendments did not satisfy because it was perceived as a PNO constitution with still many non-democratic features.
[Emphasis mine.]
No wonder the Democrats want to rip apart the current constitution, they never wanted it to begin with! But how, then, did the new constitution emerge?
After the July 1995 election, Prime Minister Banhan Silapaarcha [Banharn Silpa-Archa] declared his government support for amending the whole constitution and set up a democracy development committee to prepare for it. Later, the cabinet proposed a new draft constitution amendments to parliament, which accepted the draft in principle. It also established a special parliamentary committee of 45 to considered the draft with Professor Chaianand Smutvanich as chairman. The committee reported to the Parliament President on July 31, 1996.
Yes, Mr. Banharn, this old-style politician whose Chart Thai party was in the short-lived “evil” coalition that supported Mr. Suchinda’s premiership, gave us the “People’s Constitution”. He is also the most reluctant of the three current opposition party leaders about their election boycott. To my knowledge, he has not called for a king-appointed prime minister the way current Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has.
Mr. Amara concluded his paper with this:
Parliament debated the draft extensively in September and on September 27, approved the draft 574 to 16, with 17 members abstained.
After the royal signature by His Majesty the King, the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2540 came into force on October 11, 1997.
Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh presided over this. His New Aspiration Party would merge with Mr. Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai Party in 2002.
On this reform and others, the Asia Times, back when it was still an alternative outlet on Thailand, put it best:
What reforms exactly Chuan is supposed to have effected, [the adoring international media] don’t say or just briefly hint at. New bankruptcy and foreclosure laws? Those were drafted by the prior Chavalit Yongchaiyudh government and well along in the legislative process before Chuan took over in late 1997. Financial system consolidation? Fifty-six effectively insolvent finance companies were shut down and wound up before Chuan arrived on the scene. A new, more democratic constitution? That had been readied for final passage well before Chuan became prime minister. So, what economic or political reforms did he institute? Was the process of privatization of state-owned enterprises advanced? It wasn’t. Was telecommunications liberalization pushed ahead? It was stalled. Was decisive progress made in corporate debt restructuring? Nothing of the sort. So again, what reforms did the darling of the international media bring about? The documented record is: none to speak of.
Yes, some hack probably wrote that at Sondhi’s behest, but it’s still true.
« Media interference | Main | Not even 50-50 »
- 1
- JW 28.03.06
The paper by Amara is a great find.
- 2
- Tom Vamvanij 28.03.06
JW:
Thanks. If I remember correctly, I found the paper a couple of years ago at the Leeds University website, where Duncan McCargo is a lecturer. It doesn’t seem to be there any longer, but, in a pleasant surprise, Google Desktop fished out a copy that I had saved and forgotten.
- 3
- JW 30.03.06
I did find the Asia Times article interesting, but I do think they are slightly unfair on the bankruptcy laws.
New bankruptcy and foreclosure laws? Those were drafted by the prior Chavalit Yongchaiyudh government and well along in the legislative process before Chuan took over in late 1997.
As I have mentioned before, I have looked TPI before so I have dug up something I wrote. Many amendments were made to the bankruptcy laws, first in 1998, then 1999, and again in 2000. Yes, Chuan shouldn’t get all the credit for the 1998 amendments because the law was drafted before this – actually it was drafted for the first time in 1992, but took years to get it passed because of those senators with business interests (Prachai was one of those senators). However, while previous governments had failed in getting it passed, the Chuan-led government didn’t. It was finally passed by the Chuan-led government on 4 March 1998. At least, for that they deserve credit.
- 4
- poststaffer 31.03.06
I read some great stuff on the net about those amendments to the bankruptcy laws. I hope I posted the links under the thread on Sondhi (can’t remember now).