They view the strategy plan and the committee overseeing it, as per the draft bill passed by the National Steering Reform Assembly (NSRA) on Tuesday, as being problematic both technically and politically.

One of the most controversial issues, they said, was having the incumbent prime minister as well as chiefs of the NSRA and the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) as members of the first strategy committee.

Meanwhile, despite agreeing that a national strategy plan was essential, Democrat Party leader and former PM Abhisit Vejjajiva said those involved should be thorough because problems might follow as the composition and authority of the 25-member committee may not be in line with the rapidly changing world.

“Issues could arise because the committee is not approved by the people, when it is they who are authorised with directing the future of elected governments in the next 20 years,” he said. Pointing out that since issues with the new constitution have not been sorted out yet, this draft bill could not be considered to be in line with it, he said. The former PM also said the plan should be clear on how goals can be set and the timeframe. As for details on how the plan should be carried out, it should be left to each government to decide.

Sirote Klampaiboon, an independent scholar, said that if this idea were to be implemented, it would make the next elected government meaningless.

“They [the future governments] would not be able to put forward meaningful policies of their own if they have to follow this strategy,” he said, adding the committee was somewhat like the Communist Party’s Politbureau.

“More importantly, the whole idea about the plan is very worrisome because it is prescribed by a minority when it has to serve a diverse majority of people,” the scholar added.

He explained that public policies should reflect the demand of people in general, instead of getting military men and civil servants who have a narrow viewpoint to do the job. Also, he said, the plan would not really work. “This is not to mention how the future governments would be legally bound to follow the scheme or they would face penalties and be removed from office,” he said, adding that it was not fair.

Attasit Pankaew, Thammasat University’s political scientist, said the plan and the committee had a legitimacy problem. They could not legitimately bind future governments for 20 years to follow their strategy because it has yet to be approved by the public. Future governments who don’t wish to follow the plan could always say, it’s not the “people’s voice” so they do not have to obey it, Attasit said.

Meanwhile, some other political critics shared a more optimistic perspective, saying having a national strategy is a good idea and the committee overseeing it could not be as dreadful as the National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Committee (NSRRC) or the “crisis” panel of the previous charter draft.

Thawilwadee Bureekul, a spokesman for the NRSA’s committee on the national administration, which is responsible for the strategy bill, said the first strategy committee which included three of the five rivers appointed by the junta would only last when the next government takes office.

After that, the baton would be passed on to the next government and the heads of the upper and lower houses.

Political analyst Suriyasai Katasila also said he did not think the strategy committee was as powerful as the NSRRC, though for the sake of clarity and sincerity, those responsible for the bill should stipulate that the committee is not a means for the junta to confer power.