THE NATIONAL Legislative Assembly (NLA) yesterday voted unanimously to approve an additional referendum question asking voters whether they would approve the upper and lower houses of Parliament to jointly choose the new prime minister during the five-year transition period under the new charter.

This move is seen as an attempt by the junta to retain power after the next election. If voters approve the proposal in the referendum, it would empower an appointed Senate handpicked by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) to select a prime minister.

Klanarong Chantik, a representative from the NLA subpanel gathering opinions, reasoned at yesterday’s NLA meeting that such a measure would ensure that reform plans are be carried out during the five-year transition period, after the next elected government takes office.

Three other NLA members, however, argued why the appointed Senate should be allowed to join elected MPs in approving the new PM.

NLA member Wallop Tang-kananurak said he wholeheartedly supported the proposed extra question in the referendum. In his opinion, he said, the Senate should also be allowed to vote in a no-confidence motion against the entire Cabinet or any of its members.

Other NLA members also agreed with the proposed question, saying it could help prevent the kind of crises that had befallen the country over the past decade. The question was endorsed yesterday with 152 votes and 15 abstentions.

The question would be forwarded to the Election Commission for preparation, as it would be a part of the referendum set to take place on August 7, along with the question to approve the constitution draft. If the the question is approved, the charter draft will be amended accordingly.

Meanwhile, campaigns calling on people to either vote for or against the draft charter will be strictly prohibited with violators facing strong penalties, though people are allowed to express their opinion about the matter, the NLA announced yesterday. The NLA spent six hours deliberating on a bill related to the draft charter referendum. The bill was eventually approved with 171 votes, while one voted against it and three abstained.

The bill carries a highly controversial clause prohibiting any campaigns related to the draft charter. Under the bill’s Article 62, anybody who causes disturbance, deceives, forces or threatens voters in a bid to prevent them from exercising their ballot, or convinces them to cast a certain vote could face jail for up to 10 years or Bt200,000 in fines. The court could also consider banning their electoral rights for up to five years.

In the second reading, NLA members Wallop Tang-kananurak and Tuang Antachai asked whether the bill should differentiate between campaigns to support freedom of expression and campaigns to convince people to vote for or against the charter draft, as the difference between opinion and campaigns could be blurred and easily confused.

The panel in charge, led by Somjate Boonthanom, explained that according to Article 7 of the bill, individuals were free to express their opinions regarding the charter draft, but telling people whether to vote “yes” or “no” was illegal as it could lead to further conflicts.

“Each party has the right to point out the good and bad points of the draft, but they cannot campaign or tell voters to cast their ballot in a particular way,” the panel explained.

The only agency allowed to encourage voters to exercise their rights is the Election Commission (EC) they said, adding that it must remain neutral and not guide people to vote yes or no.

The EC will be responsible for overseeing and arranging a public platform for people to express their views about the draft charter, the panel added.

The bill also authorises the Constitution Drafting Commission to explain the essence of the draft to the people, but it too does not have the power to influence votes.

Since the initial copy of the draft charter was made public in late January, opponents such as pro-

democracy activists and some politicians have said that they will vote “no” at the planned referendum.

 

TWO GROUPS of students yesterday interrupted chief charter writer Meechai Ruchupan’s speech to voice their opposition to the draft charter as well as to clauses that they say limit students’ right to education.

The Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) chairman responded by saying that such incidents only proved that the reform was necessary in education so people could be taught discipline and tolerance of differing opinions.

The sudden protests took place as Meechai was delivering a speech on the draft charter framework at Thammasat University’s Rangsit Campus. The event was held in remembrance of late prime minister and former Thammasat rector Sanya Dharmasakti.

Just as Meechai began to say how the draft charter promoted education reform by encouraging students to build a passion for learning instead of just studying for grades, a group of activists calling themselves “Education for Liberation” showed up holding a banner reading “Do Not Harm the Youth”. The student protesters said Section 54 of the draft would undermine the quality of education and called on the CDC to reconsider the clause.

The group was led by Parit “Penguin” Chivarak, a student who was among the first to say the draft charter would deprive students of their right to education by suspending free secondary-school education. Under the new charter, kindergarten will be free, but fees will have to be paid for senior secondary school.

The group was quickly removed from the forum by university staff but Meechai was interrupted again by another group of young activists calling themselves the “League of Liberal Thammasat for Democracy”, who also displayed banners showing their opposition to the draft charter.

There was a brief disturbance as some participants voiced their dissatisfaction and called on the activists to respect their rights before security staff once again removed the protesters.

Meechai later said he did not mind the opposition. “We can never find peace, unless we learn to listen to those whose views differ from ours,” he said. “It is always useful to listen. One day when you grow up, you should learn from experience and understand things better.”

After the event, the CDC chief told reporters that such incidents were common at educational institutions where freedom was valued. He said the expression of opposition was acceptable if it was made in good faith, but not if it was driven by another party’s agenda.

Meechai added that he expected more protests because he had heard that political parties were mobilising forces to oppose the charter.

However, he added, the CDC had no concrete plans to defend against protests besides showing tolerance.

During his speech, Meechai said the draft charter was written in line with the compulsory framework created under Article 35 of the interim charter, which stipulates that the new charter remove corruption from politics.

He also admitted that some clauses did not match the drafters’ own thoughts and beliefs, and that many people considered measures to control governments, such as the potential lifetime ban from politics, far too strict. He said this could possibly be why politicians were campaigning against the draft charter.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha said yesterday that he would have the incidents investigated. “They all have backers and you already know who they are. Why bother asking me?” he said at his weekly press briefing.

The premier also said society should not support students who “messed up” a forum held to mark the birthday of a former premier.

“You’re always saying students are innocent. What do you really expect me to do then,” he said. “You sympathise with violators of law. Are they really innocent? If they keep breaking the law, they will have to be punished. Our country will only be peaceful if law is enforced.”

He added it was being considered to put the disruptive students through the junta-introduced, seven-day “training camps” designed for opposition politicians.

He added that it depended on the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) and that he could not intervene.

Members of the National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA) were invited to propose one question for the referendum on the draft charter, which they came up with on Friday. The NRSA’s suggestion will be considered by the NLA before it is finalised tomorrow.

“[We] had better let the process continue as normal,” the premier said at his weekly press briefing.

Some NLA members are apparently in favour of the question because they believe a special mechanism is required to help maintain the country’s stability during the transitional period.

However, some political figures, such as Democrat Ongart Klampaiboon, are against the question because they believe it could give some “backstage players” some extra political power.

The premier, however, called on people to go to the poll and decide, before warning groups to stop ganging up to campaign against the draft charter.

“Whether you agree or disagree, you will all have to live together eventually. You can do what you want, but don’t create conflicts. You have to understand that,” he said.

Meanwhile, the government and the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) have confirmed their stance on the draft charter handed in by the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC).

Government Spokesman Maj-General Sansern Kaewkamnerd said yesterday that the draft charter was strong enough to fight corruption, pointing out that it levied severe punishment against corrupt politicians and prevented tainted individuals, such as those facing court cases, from running in an election.

“This charter prevents corrupt individuals from going down the path to power. However, some provisions in the draft do not match the demands of the government and the NCPO, who do not want to see the country divided,” he said.

He also called on the government to honour and respect CDC members, especially chairman Meechai Ruchupan, and thanked them for their hard work in trying to steer the country towards reform.

The government also called on the public to carefully study the content of the charter and not fall for distortions of the truth when casting their ballots in the referendum.

“Critics only focus on how politicians acquire power, their positions and rights without looking at the charter’s content and realising that it focuses on upgrading the livelihood of the people. Some critics are also overlooking the charter drafters’ good intentions,” he said citing Article 54, which supports 12 years of free education.

The scholar said the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) had not used its so-called absolute power over the past two years to introduce reforms, and that it was not logical for it to stay on for another five years and claim it could carry out reforms because it would not have as much power.

Thirayuth spoke at Thammasat University’s Rangsit campus yesterday at an event held to mark the birthday of late PM and former university rector Sanya Dharmasakti.

He said that the country was in dire need of reform, but it could not count on elected governments to carry them out because they were weak and did not have enough power or will.

While admitting that only military-installed governments can push for some reforms, he said he did not see the NCPO do anything in that regard over the past two years.

But the scholar said it was not too late for the NCPO to start working on reforms, especially before the election.

He also wondered if it would be worth trading democracy for reform, apparently referring to the undemocratic clause in the new draft charter, which allows for a junta-appointed Senate.

“It is not reasonable to say that the Senate will carry out reform in the future, but it is a job that the NCPO should be doing now. I just think that it will become problematic in the long run,” he said.

Thirayuth also criticised Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha for not making good use of his absolute powers under Article 44, and wasting it on minor issues such as regulating the lottery price and motorcycle taxis.

He said there were four key points that required reform. The first was tackling natural disasters such as drought and floods, he said, adding that the authorities should have set up a team of experts to deal with these preventable issues.

Secondly, he said, state agencies managing national resources such as electricity should be more transparent and informative, and the public should have a bigger say in the management of such valuable resources. Thirayuth noted that these areas were exploited by politicians and powers-that-be.

Thirdly, he said, national transport was in urgent need of reform as it was not benefiting the public but instead mostly served industrial sectors owned by financiers and politicians.

Fourthly, he said, national security should be focused on given that terrorism had become a global threat.

Thirayuth also said that in order to sustain democracy and tackle poverty in the long run, it was the people who need to be empowered along with other legal mechanisms.

As for the draft charter, he told reporters that having a constitution written after a coup was structurally wrong, but this had always happened in Thailand. However, he implied that the latest draft charter might pass the public referendum as the military-government was still popular and many people were tired of the vicious cycle of political protests.

The selection is different from what the charter draft stipulated as the draft only allows MPs to select the PM.

The source said it was possible that the NLA would add content in the question to make it easier for the selection of non-elected PM candidates not on the list presented by political parties.

The charter draft provisions allow for a selection of non-elected PM candidates not on the lists of political parties but they require the approval of two thirds of both the Upper and Lower houses or 500 votes out of 700 in total. Political observers believe it would be difficult to achieve such a ratio.

The source said some NLA members also want the appointed senators to have the power to grill the government in no-confidence motions.

However Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) chairman Meechai Ruchupan disapproves of the move, citing the fact that senators did not form the government.

The source said it was likely the charter draft would pass the referendum but the additional question may not pass because “it is too extreme”.

The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) would not lose but only gain if the public accepts the question since the council could claim that it was the public’s desire, the source said.

The interim charter stipulates that if the people accept the additional question, the CDC must amend the charter draft to comply with voter desire.

The CDC would have to seek a Constitutional Court ruling for any charter provision that did not comply with the results of the referendum and amend the document.

Meanwhile, amending the charter draft to respond to the results of the referendum question would be possible, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said.

The NLA voted last week to propose the extra referendum question on whether the public agrees that selected senators should be allowed to vote for a prime minister to serve during the five-year transitional period following the next general election.

Critics have noted that if voters accept both the charter draft and allow selected senators to vote for the prime minister there would be a conflict, because the charter draft specifies a different process to select the next premier.

But Wissanu, one of the government’s top legal advisers, dismissed the criticism, saying people might not agree with all the provisions in the charter but they could decide whether to accept the draft as a whole.

“When there is a specific question, voters have the right to answer such a question. It is common,” Wissanu said.

Deputy Democrat Party leader Ongart Klampaiboon said amending the charter to allow senators to vote for the prime minister could be interpreted as violating the will of voters who would have voted for a charter specifying a different selection process.

“If people knew the charter could be amended, they might not vote to accept it,” he said.

He said senators handpicked by the NCPO should not have equal power to MPs, who are elected by the people.

Ongart said an additional question in the referendum would cause confusion. He also urged the NLA to carefully select the question by taking public interest into account.

Wissanu said the NLA did not have to use the additional question suggested by the National Reform Steering Assembly and could craft its own question.

“The additional question will not cause confusion but clarity,” he said.

Election on schedule

Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan said an election would still be held next year if the charter draft does not pass the referendum, but added that the NCPO did not need to reveal what charter would be chosen as an alternative to the current draft.

Politicians have said the public has a right to know before the referendum which previous charter would be adopted if they rejected the draft.

NLA members expressed support for the additional referendum question presented by the NRSA.

NLA member Witawad Boonyasatid said the public had to accept that the country still faces political instability with the latest incident of politicians distributing red bowls with the signature of ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

He said it was possible that the former PM could instigate further political turmoil after the election.

He said the country needed senators to help ensure peace during the five-year interim period. The appointed senators would not be given too much power – they would not have the right to grill the elected government in a no-confidence motion, but may be allowed to help select the next prime minister. The NLA would vote on Thursday what question should be used, he said.

“Other questions are not as weighty. No one has ordered the NLA to make a [particular] decision in regard to the extra referendum question,” he said.

NLA Kittisak Rattanawaraha said the most talked about question among NLA members was whether both Houses [in Parliament] should vote on who will be next PM. He said most members agreed that this question should be put to voters – they felt other questions such as the double-ballot electoral system and appointing an independent panel to bring about national reconciliation carry less weight.