Politics that is genuinely representative of the popular will has been a rarity in Thai history. Our political parties and politicians have instead been dominated by special interests – a situation that undermines not only their ability to represent constituents, but also the spirit of democracy itself.
Organic constitutional law on political parties now being written offers fresh hope that parties could be liberated from such domination.
“The new political parties law we are writing is aimed at freeing parties from influence and making them belong to the people,” Udom Rathamarit, a spokesman of the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) told The Nation in an exclusive interview. “It will bring changes in how a party is established, as well as how it is run.”
With the new bill, reformers and members of the CDC are seeking to reconfigure the links between the people, political parties and politicians by decentralising power and strengthening democratic institutions.
The new law will require a more participatory process in forming parties and determining membership, with an increased role for party branches and members, including in the selection of candidates for MPs. It also stipulates greater transparency for donations and finances, plus more opennes and commitment by parties in regard to formulation of their public policy.
Political parties and politicians will thus be made more transparent, accountable and committed to the people, with stiff penalties for politicians who treat their parties or positions as assets in return for monetary gain. Those penalties can be as severe as capital punishment or life terms in prison –an unprecedented legal constraint against politicians and political parties.
The renewed reform effort appears justified given the mess politicians have made of the country in the past. Measures introduced are in fact logical steps toward the overall aim of forging political parties that genuinely belong to the people, by boosting their participatory nature and commitment to the public.
However, relying exclusively on an approach of legal suppression might not yield the yearned for results.
The CDC has held at least two public hearings on the organic laws, yet no major parties have attended. If their absence suggests anything, it is that the new law will face strong opposition.
More critically, the public has been just as unresponsive to the bill, partly due to its complex and technical legal language that is difficult to understand.
A genuine and deeper sense of political ownership among citizens can only be instilled through education and public-awareness campaigns. Besides focusing on legal curbs on political parties and politicians, reformers and law drafters need to address the long-term process whereby people are encouraged to become politically self-aware and demanding of their representatives. Genuine democracy will not be achieved by flicking on a legal switch.

Handouts of Bt3,000 or Bt1,500 will be given to 5.4 million people who earn less than Bt30,000 or Bt100,000 annually, who registered as “poor” before August.
Timelines have since become battlefields for a war-of-words between pro- and anti-government groups, as well politicians and supporters of the Pheu Thai and Democrat parties.
In response to government spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd’s remark that the scheme was not populism but state welfare, @RITT41 wrote on Twitter, “A handout is a handout. No matter what you call it, it’s a handout.”
@teacherwarat replied, “A rice purchase is a rice purchase. Why did you call it rice pledging?”
On Facebook, Achara Deboonmee wrote, “The government is also considering another spending-promotion measure. If you pay tax at the 10 per cent rate and spend Bt15,000 in one go, you will be eligible for a tax deduction of Bt1,500. Last year, over 2 million people (including me) spent a total of over Bt1,500 billion because of this measure, which added 0.2 per cent to economic growth.”
But she said businesspeople were the real beneficiaries from this measure.
Wanchalerm Satsaksit wrote:
“If the money is given away, there will be no productivity and it will be gone in one month. But if [the government] provides rice mills which farmers can come to use, they can be used to support the people in heavy rice-farming
areas. This will upgrade community rice mills. Otherwise, this money could be used for OTOP promotions and a lot of people would have jobs. I don’t know why the NCPO can’t figure this out.”
At Pantip.com’s forum, member No 3535307 wrote, “This is helping the rich. The poor can spend Bt3,000 in one day – that’s not enough for investment. The poor will use it to buy their everyday necessities or to eat or travel. The result is the money will go to wealthy people’s businesses in places such as shopping malls. They will be able to sell more without needing extra promotions.”
Member No 3496384 wrote, “This can stimulate the economy. Though it is temporary, it is better than nothing.”
Member No 3517463 replied, “How can this be called good?  Spending Bt12.75 billion in a split second!?”
U Pai Ruey wrote, “[The government is] being generous. It’s giving away money. So don’t forget to boost zero-baht tourism and develop exports too.”
The debate on Twitter was also fierce. @b969 tweeted “[The government] should give away rice rather than money. That would double the benefit by helping low-income people and rice farmers, and stop it from being accused of helping businesspeople.”
@OakkyzaCZ wrote, “Why does the government give money to the poor? Why not give them books and teach them to work and earn money?”
@botza69 took aim at spokesman Sansern’s words: “‘So that [the low-income people] can live happily with narrower social gap and with dignity.’ Wait! How much do you give them? Bt3,000 or Bt3 million?”
@To0_PoP asked, “Which companies’ shares will benefit from the cash handout policy?”
@political_drama wrote, “The cash handout for the poor will not make anyone rich. The money will be given directly to the poor, [so there’s] no way anyone can abuse and take advantage of the scheme.”
The Thailand Development Research Institute (@TDRI_thailand) wrote, “The cash handout policy can only increase purchasing power in the short term but will not have a long-term effect that will attract more investment.”

Government Spokesman Lt-General Sansern Kaewkamnerd yesterday disclosed that WHO director-general Dr Margaret Chan had applauded the Prime Minister Prayut for his project to encourage the country’s civil servants to exercise at least once a week – every Wednesday – and stated that the PM’s initiative was a good example for the other countries to follow.
“WHO thanks Thailand for promoting the importance of exercise and implementing the policy very quickly and it can be announced that it is the first step forward for the Bangkok Convention on exercising for a healthier world and sustainable development,” Sansern said.
He also stated that the government was drafting the strategy plan that aimed to encourage Thai people to increase their exercise rate from 68 per cent to 75 per cent in the next five years.
He said the strategy would focus on children, teenagers, working people, and the elderly and promote exercising in hospitals, offices, schools, parks, and bus terminals.
The government will support the initiative through research, audits, development, and advertising.
“The prime minister stated that our country has the potential and medical advancement, so the government is ready to further develop this course to let the people have healthier lives by exercise regularly in every population age group and decrease the chance for suffering from chronic diseases such as cancer or diabetes,” he said.
“Therefore, the government would like to invite all civil servants to participate in Wednesday exercise sessions from 3.30pm to 4.30pm every week and encourage all the people to exercise regularly at the time and place that is convenient for them.”

The 11th World Conference of the International Ombudsman Institute (IOI), held in Bangkok from November 13-19, drew more than 180 ombudsmen from more than 60 IOI member countries, under the theme “Evolution of Ombudsman”.
And the event was no free junket. Delegates to the conference had to be responsible for part of their own expenses, including airfares and accommodation.
At the closing ceremony, all key participants, including IOI president John Walters, praised the Thai hosts for their “extraordinary work”. They also said the country had set a very high standard for the country that will host the next conference in 2020.
However, Thailand’s Chief Ombudsman, General Viddhavat Rajatanun, admitted that preparations for the event had not been completely smooth.
Due the country being under military rule, some IOI members, particularly those from European nations, had expressed misgivings about the conference taking place in Bangkok, the Thai ombudsman told The Nation in an exclusive interview.
“Some IOI members from Europe were uncomfortable about the current political situation in Thailand. They expressed concerns over the selection of the independent agencies’ position-holders, including the Ombudsman, questioning the transparency. Especially as I am a military officer myself, they were concerned whether I was chosen based on my merits,” Viddhavat said.
However, he said the office was able to explain and give a reassurance about the independence of the office. Though the country was under an extraordinary rule, the junta actually issued an order in its first days that the independent agencies should proceed as normal, Viddhavat said.
While some may hold doubts about his background as a military officer, the ombudsman said that in the selection process, every candidate was reviewed and examined thoroughly. Viddhavat said he had explained to other IOI members that Thai ombudsmen had empirical evidence to prove their credentials and were free of the junta’s influence.
But that was not the only concern raised by fellow members of the Ombudsman Institute. Some were also critical of human rights issues in Thailand.
“Their concern was so serious. They said that because of the political and rights situation, this conference should not be held in Thailand,” Viddhavat said.
But because the office had been preparing for this opportunity for so long, it managed to create an understanding with the critics.
Viddhavat said the Thai ombudsman had explained to other members how the government had been working hard to tackling human rights issues in the country.
He cited the recent news that Thailand had been lifted to Tier 2 in the US Tracking In Persons (TIP) Report and said the government had put great effort into addressing human trafficking issues.
With regards to freedom of expression, Viddhavat said the government recently ended use of military courts for security cases. Those crimes were now tried in civilian courts, in line with international standards, he added.
“The explanation was well accepted by most IOI members and so we could continue to host this event,” the ombudsman said.
He said while some members may not have been completely happy, the Thai ombudsmen gained support from their international friends. Some of these issued a statement in solidarity with the Thais, saying the conference was about ombudsmen’s affairs and had no relation to the political situation in the country.
IOI president Walters, the ombudsman for Namibia in southwest Africa, confirmed to The Nation that there had been some opposition concerning the suitability of Bangkok hosting the conference. He said Thailand had been chosen because none of the previous 10 conferences had been held in Asia.
“It’s a good opportunity for Thailand and the IOI because we have never had a conference in Asia before. But more importantly, Thailand did very good in its presentation of why it should be chosen as the host this year,” he said.
Walters said while some members had been doubtful, he thought Thailand had proved to be a very good host and the Thai ombudsmen were also clear that the office was influence-free and could carry out its task in inspecting government affairs.
“We do not have any worries about the Thai ombudsman in that sense. Rather, we are more concerned about how the office could respond to complaints. But from the experience shared in the forum, it seems Thailand could do its job very well,” he said.
Walters said that the IOI would continue to support its Thai colleagues in remaining independent. If any regime interfered with their work, the institute would act and try to help restore the office’s independence.
Another interesting point about the conference was its theme – “Evolution of Ombudsman”.
Viddhavat said the theme was chosen by the secretariat office in Vienna. In the forum, each member took turns sharing experiences about how they evolved in their context.
As far as Thailand is concerned, the Thai ombudsman said that the office’s role had evolved.
“In the past, we examined only governmental affairs. We are the fourth in the balance of power besides the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary,” he said. “Now, with the advancement fostered by the new constitution, we are empowered to inspect also the country’s politicians.”
Under the new charter, Viddhavat said ombudsmen would have authority to set out standards of morality for politicians to follow, making it a hybrid institution that could help look into the political sphere. He said he believed this power would enable his office to help people more effectively.

Unlike the 2007 charter, which guaranteed that existing terms for officeholders would be respected, the current draft constitution does not clearly address the issue.
All eyes are now on the Constitution Drafting Commission, which has been tasked with writing organic laws covering the matter.
Meechai Ruchupan, the CDC chairman, has not given a clear answer, saying that his commission had not yet discussed terms of office. He added, however, that members of independent agencies would have to meet the standards under the new constitution.
Those who failed to do so would need to vacate their positions.
His remarks have triggered criticism that the CDC is writing a law whose impact will be retroactive and negative. Critics argue that the Constitutional Court judges, the auditor general and others assumed their office under the rules of the 2007 constitution, and the CDC should respect those terms of office for the sake of continuity. Among the critical voices are members of independent agencies.
The CDC chairman said the drafters might consider making an exception for current officeholders but added that constitutional rules would be absolute.
Article 273 of a new constitution, set to be ratified later this year, states that the Constitutional Court judges, members of Constitutional Organisations, and the auditor-general holding office before the promulgation of the new constitution “shall continue to perform duties and, when the concerned Organic Acts come into force, the continual holding of such positions shall be as provided by such Organic Acts”.
In other words, the CDC has the power to specify in the organic laws how long current officeholders can continue serving.
Article 273 also states that, “During the period where the Organic Acts have not been enacted, the vacation from office of the Constitutional Court judges, the Constitutional Organisation members and the auditor-general shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 2007 constitution and the concerned Organic Acts or laws.”
In other words, members of independent agencies will be able to remain in their current positions for about a year after the new constitution is promulgated or the organic law comes into effect. If any legal problem arises over their duties or qualifications during that period, the rules of the 2007 constitution will apply.
The new constitution sets a seven-year term of office for all independent agencies, while the previous charter set different tenures.
The drafters now face a headache in deciding exactly how long current officeholders in each different independent agency can remain in office.
Meechai says that a nine-member selection committee will be tasked with checking qualifications of would-be officeholders and solving any related disputes. The panel, whose verdict would be final, would consist of the Supreme Court president, House of Representatives speaker, parliamentary opposition leader, Supreme Administrative Court president, and representatives from each of the five independent agencies – the Election Commission, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, Office of the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and the National Human Rights Commission.
Critics say a loophole will now open for officeholders to leverage their ties with ruling figures to gain exemption from the new rules. We can only hope that such self-serving corruption can somehow be minimised and that this charter ushers in a new era of “clean” democracy.

THE COMMITTEE drafting the new computer crime law of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) acknowledged pressing concerns over Internet rights but cited the need to balance rights with cyber-crime investigations as well as national security.
Led by chairman Pol General Chatchawan Suksomjit, the committee yesterday held a special session open to the general public to solicit opinions about the 2007 Computer Crime Act that is being revised on the grounds that amendments were necessary to keep pace with the fast-paced digital sphere.
Chatchawan said the committee wanted to facilitate every party and the law should be able to protect the rights of Internet users and not give excessive power to investigating authorities, he said. On the other hand, Internet users should be careful not to violate the rights of other people, cause damage to others or undermine national security, he said.
He detailed changes being made in the law, including Article 20, which stipulates that committees under the digital ministry will be able to file a complaint with the courts to remove information from websites deemed to violate social-morality standards.
The committee, comprised of members from diverse parties including the private sector, will report directly to the minister about the removal of such information, Chatchawan said.
Regarding the controversial Article 14 and 15 of the law, an adviser of the committee Paiboon Amornpinyokiat said Internet providers would not be subjected to punishment as offenders, as some people might be concerned, so long as they followed the ministerial announcements and regulations.
Article 14 prohibits the posting of “false” information, or any information that is deemed to be a threat to national security. The maximum punishment would be five years in jail. Article 15 stipulates that service providers could receive the same punishment.
Concerns raised by rights groups such as Amnesty International in Thailand include the vagueness of the term “false information”, which could be interpreted differently, making it susceptible to abuse at the hands of the authorities to repress certain forms of expression.
A growing number of people have been charged with computer crimes since the coup in 2014. Some cases concern criticism of the ruling National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) and of the monarchy, which led offenders to be charged with other crimes, including under the controversial lese majeste law.
According to Fortify Right, a rights watchdog that also has a branch in Thailand, in 2011, 2012 and 2013, there were respectively six, 13 and 46 cyber-crime cases brought to court. The numbers multiplied after the 2014 coup to at least 321 and 399 cases in 2015 and 2016 respectively.
However, the panel yesterday did not say how it would address the issue.
Meanwhile, rights advocates holding a parallel event called on the NLA to reject the latest amendments to the Computer Crime Act and adopt new proposals to ensure that the state respects people’s rights to privacy and expression and promotes an “information society”.
The groups, including the Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw) and Thai Netizen Network (TNW), jointly monitored the NLA’s forum via Facebook live and discussed how the currently amended act threatened people’s lives.
Kanathip Thongraweewong, dean of faculty of law of Saint John’s University, said the amended act would threaten the public’s freedom of speech and privacy, given that certain sections still remained vague and overbroad.
The revised version would give authorities sweeping powers to arbitrarily use the law against online users and Internet providers in a widened scope of offences, including defamation.
He said compared to the previous amended version, the current amendments were worse, citing Section 14 as an example.
“The amended Section 14, which bans uploading ‘forged’ or ‘false’ content ‘likely to cause damage to a third party’, carrying up to five years in prison and a Bt100,000 fine, has widened the scope of offences,” Kanathip said.
He said the provision’s language enabled authorities to bring charges of criminal defamation under Section 14, addressing state legal adviser Paiboon Amornpinyokiat’s comments at the NLA forum that Section 14 would be mainly used against cyber-crime cases and phishing, rather than defamation cases.
Other sections, including 15 and 20, deal with service providers and the role of authorities, potentially restricting freedom of expression and creating a “self-censorship climate”, he added.

Under Section 15, service providers who “cooperate, consent or acquiesce” in the committing of an offence against Article 14 will face five years in prison. He said Section 15 will put service providers in a dilemma on whether to invest more in levelling up their protection measures or prove their innocence.
“The providers will get so scared that they can begin barring users from expressing their opinions,” he said.
He added that Section 15 also addressed the controversial “notice and takedown” measure that allows authorities to press providers, without judicial approval, to suppress the dissemination of questionable content and have it removed from the computer system.
“This has raised concerns over the notice and takedown guideline, which has not been explicitly clarified.”
He also pointed out that Section 20 also suppresses the right to expression.
Section 20 allows a state-appointed committee, which is in charge of flagging up suspicious content to be removed or block websites that it considers a threat to national security or offensive to public morals.
“Will we allow a five-member committee to decide what people should or shouldn’t know and what websites or information we should not receive?” he asked.
In the talk, the participants also voiced concerns over Sections 16, 18, and 19, which empower the authorities to access and eliminate suspicious data, which would inevitably threaten people’s privacy.
Arthit Suriyawongkul, key member of TNW, said people are more concerned about their rights and privacy.
“As we has observed, netizens actively participate and follow the CCA,” he said, adding that #พรบคอม (#CCA) was yesterday’s top hashtag in Twitter.
However, Yingcheep Atchanont, iLaw’s project manager, said people did not understand much about the CCA, as it was too technical.
He said the objective of the talk was to promote inclusive debates and people’s active participation in relation to the country’s legislation. He asked the government to also allow public hearings and an inclusive process.
“As a citizen, I want to see people’s rights of expression being protected. The atmosphere should be free and open rather than a suppressed one,” said Peerayuth Lekavanich, a 39-year-old businessman who joined the discussion and regularly expresses his opinions regarding political controversy on social media.