Prepared by the Meechai Ruchuphan-headed Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC), this draft does not provide for the rights of people to assemble for the protection of their community and their environment at all.

This is despite the fact that such rights had been enshrined in Thailand’s constitutions since 1997.

Both the 1997 and 2007 constitutions allowed communities a direct constitutional channel to stand up and defend themselves.

Thanks to such constitutional stipulations, Thai communities have in many ways become stronger during the past two decades. Some communities had successfully protected their hometowns from questionable industrial or development projects.

With communities getting stronger, Thailand benefited from more efficient check-and-balance mechanisms.

The powers-that-be, politically or economically, consequently had less chance of abusing communities for their own vested interests.

Yet, the CDC has now decided against including community-rights clauses in its current charter draft.

The CDC has instead passed on the protection of such rights to local administrative organisations. In the eyes of critics, communities will in effect fall at the mercy of state or political-office holders again as soon as this charter draft becomes the country’s highest law.

It is sad that the CDC has disappointed people who want to protect their own rights and defend themselves, just like how the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) has failed them with its environmental policies.

Let’s look at what has happened in terms of community rights and environmental/community protection since the NCPO came to power in mid-2014.

The NCPO has issued an order with the declared objective of preventing forest encroachment and reclaiming forestland. But as a result, thousands of people have suffered. Many of these victims are facing legal threats and eviction even though they lived in the forest long before such zones were declared parts of national parks or forest reserves.

The NCPO orders on the acquisition of land for use in Special Economic Zones (SEZs) has also raised alarm. There are risks of land status being abruptly changed. The consequences could be dire for people who don’t have a channel to defend themselves.

During the NCPO-installed government, the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry has also allowed garbage-fuelled power plants of all sizes to materialise without the need to conduct Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports. Critics are worried that without an EIA, even for big plants, by the time adverse impacts hit, no solutions will be able to undo the damage.

Kasetsart University economics lecturer Decharut Sukkumnoed has lamented that recent developments suggest that people will become unable to determine their own fate and future.

Decharut disagrees with the current charter draft’s intention of entrusting state agencies or local administrative bodies with the mission of managing community’s natural resources.

“If community rights are buried, locals won’t be able to protect their rights. Things will be too complicated if people will have to sue state agencies for damages done to their communities instead of blocking questionable projects from the very beginning,” he says.

If the current charter draft becomes the country’s new constitution, local people will mainly have to rely on the Central Administrative Court in taking action against state agencies or local administrative bodies that fail to protect their communities.

In that case, the court looks set to be flooded with complaints.

That’s probably the reason why some senior officials have been pondering the idea of coming up with a new dream or vision for Thailand.

As stated in a report from the bureaucratic administration committee under the National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA), this “vision” aims to boost the hopes of the people.

The idea of developing this new vision by laying down a long-term strategy for the country was hatched and nurtured quietly among senior officials when the first charter was being drafted.

Despite the previous charter draft being shot down following controversial proposals, including the establishment of the National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Committee (NSRRC), the formulation of this national strategy has continued under a government-appointed committee.

According to a source, this panel has been working on the strategy’s content, while it has passed the development of mechanisms to drive the strategy over to the NRSA’s bureaucratic administration committee.

The content was revealed this week and met with a mixture of shock and surprise, for it might bring back the now-defunct but much-feared NSRRC.

Under the previous draft, the NSRRC was designed to supervise long-term reform plans and reconciliation, while also having a special authority to end a crisis, which was emphasised in the provisional chapter.

This time, the new strategy and its mechanisms, including the new national strategy draft, proposes the creation of a new committee, which would have similar powers as those of the NSRRC, except for ending a crisis.

So, the same old question arises: Will it still have excessive power? The NSRRC, if created, would have had the power to overrule the government, as it was tasked with scrutinising the powers-that-be, and if necessary, have concerned agencies take further action.

In other words, future governments would have had to follow set plans for fulfilling the country’s dreams and hopes—something that several observers said was undemocratic.

The creation of this committee also raises the question of whether it will help those in power prolong their stay, considering the fact that its proposed members would include the current prime minister.

As a nation, it would not be wrong to dream of a better future and have a strategy to do so, but as the means of achieving this are questionable, it might be worth reviewing.

The source said that after the NRSA endorsed its study report on the strategy this week, the committee is now rushing to wrap it up so it can |forward it to the government, |which can then hand it over to the National Legislative Assembly for deliberation and approval.

Hence, it is not difficult to see what this proposal could lead to. But as the old proverb says, the means also determine the goal – so concerned agencies should take this opportunity to review whether the means they have chosen to achieve Thailand’s dream are acceptable.

We may have a dream, work on keeping our hopes alive, but this would prove to be meaningless if the path we choose is not acceptable to others. Without public acceptance, there will be no national dream, just dreams that a handful of people have decided to chase on their own.

The CDC has received a lot of proposals and recommendations from public members and political stakeholders. The inputs are so great in number and diverse that some constitution drafters complained many people who had made suggestions did not actually understand the problem areas the country’s new constitution had to address.

Judging from the large number of suggestions for revisions to the original draft, it could be interpreted that those recommendations are from people who do not understand the CDC’s mission. And it may also mean that the drafters were unable to meet the expectations of the people, particularly regarding what they want included in the new constitution. Many people want the charter to help restructure social order, ensure equality, and get rid of legal loopholes that allow corruption.

CDC chief Meechai Ruchupan has advertised the charter as an “anti-corruption constitution”. He explained there are mechanisms and measures aimed at keeping corrupt people out of politics. This is said to be boost good governance and the chance to get representatives and rulers with high ethical values.

Provisions in the chapter on “government duties” require the administration, the bureaucracy and state agencies to implement stated measures unavoidably. Certain state policies are designed to cover a long timeframe. Moreover, independent organisations are given more power in scrutinising and balancing their power with government.

However, civil society is still calling for revisions to the original draft in order to retain the rights of communities to have a say in local natural resources and environment. These rights appeared in the pre-coup 2007 constitution. The government was required to hear from local residents in case any project that might affect them – in terms of the environment, natural resources or health.

Many civic groups and environmental activists described the CDC’s draft constitution as promoting “government hegemony” while restricting the roles and rights of local residents. They warned that unless people were allowed to “stand at the forefront” of national development, this new constitution would create more problems than solving them.

The drafters, particularly Meechai, explained that the rights and liberties guaranteed in the previous constitution would remain intact, although they are mentioned in different chapters.

It is likely the drafters will make some revisions to this issue following much pressure from civic groups. However, with the time constraints, it is unlikely they will make all the revisions as suggested. Also, it remains unclear if the revisions will be what the people involved asked for.

The CDC’s work is restricted by requirements in Article 35 of the post-coup interim charter. There are 10 issues that the draft constitution has to cover, including mechanisms for reform and suppression of corruption.

Those stated requirements seem to aim at tackling political problems, and not actually solving the country’s problems.

The latest projection is 2.8-3.8 per cent growth (or about 3.3 per cent) for this year, revised downwards from the previous 3-4 per cent range (or about 3.5 per cent).

According to Dr Veerathai Santiprabhob, governor of the Bank of Thailand, the preferred normal growth rate ought to be 4-5 per cent to reflect the country’s potential.

In my opinion, such a trend cannot be achieved yet due to political |and economic restructuring challenges.

First, Thailand still has a political stability challenge. Will the political transition towards a democratically-elected government smooth out in the next one to two years?

Over the past decade, political instability has significantly hurt the country’s economic potential. Thailand has lagged behind virtually all other nine member-countries of the Asean Economic Community (AEC) in terms of economic growth rates.

Growth rates have been higher in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam and the rest of the AEC, even though most have a smaller economy than that of Thailand, which is AEC’s second largest after Indonesia.

Second, the country needs a strong government to implement supply-side restructuring to boost competitiveness, which is more difficult than demand-side management.

Energy and education reforms are also crucial to allow the country to realise its full economic potential in coming years, especially in view of an ageing Thai society.

With a lower birth rate but longer life expectancy, the number of senior citizens has risen sharply, facilitated by better healthcare and other favourable factors.

This has resulted in a shrinking labour force and a bigger burden on the younger generation to provide welfare.

To cope with such a trend, one of the strategies is to focus on the CLMV economies of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam, which have a much younger population and rising purchasing power.

Given the country’s advantageous geographic location, Thailand can be positioned to benefit from the huge labour forces and fast-growing markets in these neighbouring countries.

Vietnam, for instance, is booming with a lot of labour-intensive industries – just like Thailand two to three decades ago. With a population of nearly 100 million, it can also be a big market for Thai products and investors. Several have already set their footprints in the neighbouring country.

In Myanmar, the demographic factor is similar with a big and young population of 60 million, who are ready sources of both workers and consumers.

Thailand should also deepen its economic links with Cambodia and Laos, even though their populations are smaller, for mutual benefits in the global supply chain involving all these Asean economies.

Value-added industries and services are key to Thailand’s economic future due to rising domestic wages and demographic factors.

Thai enterprises should also focus on quality control and creative works such as design, entertainment and software development to uplift its potential to new heights.

Even in manufacturing areas, the country should be linked with CLMV economies to leverage the region’s advantages in the global supply chain as exemplified by Japan’s so-called Thailand-plus One strategy.

The new model means Japanese enterprises will further expand into other Aseancountries out of its base in Thailand. For example, it could move the labour-intensive parts of their production processes to special economic zones in Cambodia, Laos or Myanmar to take advantage of cheaper and more abundant workforces.

The most talked about topic in Thai politics currently is whether Meechai Ruchupan’s charter draft will pass a national referendum scheduled to be held in July.

Obviously, Meechai’s draft is facing more opposition rather than receiving praise.

Many opposition sides, ranging from red shirt leaders to anti-coup student activists and civic groups who are concerned about the draft’s failure to clearly address the rights of communities, civic concerns, consumers and the disabled.

In a move that could deepen the country’s political impasse, some of these critics – including the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship chairman Jatuporn Promphan and Pheu Thai executive Chaturon Chaisang – have clearly declared they will vote down the draft. Some groups have vowed to campaign against the draft charter if Meechai fails to improve his version and meet their demands.

The resistance has led to concerns about political uncertainty because people fear that if the draft fails to pass the referendum, we would still be under a military-installed government – and for how long is the more important question.

Political observers are now divided.

One group believes the draft will pass the plebiscite as the junta should be able to successfully prevent any move trying to shoot down the charter. Based on in-depth government information from PM’s Office Minister and ex-national intelligence chief Suwaphan Tanyuvardhana, the junta should be able to ensure he knows every anti-charter and anti-coup movement and be able to stop them.

This camp thinks the longer the junta stays in power, the more pressure it will face both from domestic and international communities. Hence, the junta will do everything it can to get the charter passed. Moreover, the denial of the draft would surely imply politically that voters were against the junta, which appointed the charter drafters.

On the contrary, the other camp thinks the draft will not be able to pass if Meechai does not change some contentious points the opposition sides have asked for.

But whether the draft is passed or not should not be the vital question right now, because the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) chief already has in mind a charter for holding the next election.

A more interesting question is which charter the junta would select to hold the election.

Late last month, Prayut said there would still be an election by July 2017 in line with the junta government’s “6-4-6-4 roadmap” even if the draft charter is rejected in a referendum.

“Some of the charter would be used [to conduct a general election] if the new draft is rejected,” the premier said. He added that such a charter would contain only one to three articles about how the election would be held, human rights and democracy.

However, anti-coup groups have demanded the junta use the now torn-up 1997 charter if the Meechai draft is turned down by the referendum.

But it’s unlikely that the junta would accept the demand. By doing so, it would mean the coup in May 2014 was a waste. They staged the coup to curb the Shinawatras’ influence in politics as much as they could.

Hence, the tentative two options – if the draft is rejected :

First, the junta writes a new draft, which would take a shorter time than setting up a new drafting committee, considering that the junta may not want to stay longer in power than the road map says due to community pressure.

Second option: revise or adjust previous charters or Meechai’s draft, or even the interim charter 2014.

That then leads to the most important question. How will the political environment be, post the 2017 election?

If the election is held next year as the junta plans, it’s still likely the Thaksin camp would win again. So, any charter draft to be used to hold the election needs to have measures to prevent them from winning or forming a new government. If the junta fails to do that, it must be prepared with other measures to prevent it.

Political observers suggest we keep our eyes on any provisional clauses allowing the junta to retain power, no matter by what means, to ensure the coup wasn’t a waste and will at least retain its power during the transitional period.

At the 10th Thai-China steering committee meeting scheduled for the end of this month in Beijing, Thailand should convince China to be responsible for at least 70 per cent of the project value.

The other option would be to make China responsible of all parts of the project under the build, operate and transfer scheme. That would require it to transfer all assets to the Thai government once the contract is due, in, say, maybe 30 years, Democrat Party deputy leader Korn Chatikavanijsuggested in a Facebook post.

“We must admit that the State Railway of Thailand does not have enough skill in the operation of high-speed railways,” he pointed out.

Although the project is expected to be beneficial to both sides, China stands to gain more in terms of strategic results. China also has more money and operating skills than Thailand.

Many people are concerned about the deal, fearing that Thailand might be at a disadvantage if the government gets China to develop the project as well as borrow the funds from Beijing to finance it. Moreover, technology like rolling stock and signalling systems, plus contractors and workers will have to be imported from China. In the end, Thailand may have to be responsible for all or most of the risk of investment.

Before the upcoming meeting, the Chinese side is expected to provide feedback on whether it is ready to agree to Thailand’s recent proposals.

Thailand has asked China to adjust the original joint venture or Specific Purpose Vehicle (SPV) of a 60:40 share (only for operating) to a new one in which Thailand holds 30 per cent and China takes the rest. However, the SPV will cover almost all the investment, including civil-engineering work, track-and-signal system installation, plus operations and maintenance.

Meanwhile, China has proposed scaling down construction of the Nakhon Ratchasima to Nong Khai line from a dual-track to single-track. It also wants to delay construction of the line from Kaeng Khoi to Map Tha Phut.

As is widely known, the Sino-Thai rail project – part of China’s 5,500km Trans-Asian Railway running from southern China to Malaysia via Laos and Thailand – is meant not only for Asean connectivity, but also geopolitical purposes.

However, Thailand still has the time to study this matter thoroughly as the memorandum of understanding will be valid for five years after signing, which means it has until December 2019.

There really is no need to hasten the project unless it is too much of a priority or if we have enough money to go ahead with it.

If it is Asean connectivity that we are aiming for, then we are still able to connect with our neighbours as most of them run a 1-metre gauge railway. Plus, Thailand is also improving the existing railway to dual-track from the current single-track set-up.

The government may have made a mistake by deciding to adopt the EPC (engineering, procurement and construction) deal or maybe it is afraid that some may oppose Chinese ownership when discussing the SPV at the early stages of negotiation.

In addition, the unclear purpose of what exactly the railway will be used for — passengers or cargo — has made the project more costly than the original estimate of Bt400 billion. The new estimate is about Bt530 billion.

This may have also led to the project’s designers to opt for speeds of 160-180 kilometre per hour. But, an industry expert has said this speed is made-to-order technology, which is not available on store shelves.

Therefore, looking at the deal in detail, the government has to do its best in further negotiations and ensure public interest is maintained as much as possible.

However, there are still uncertainties ahead. If you remember, after the first charter draft completed by Borwornsak Uwanno and other members of the Constitution Drafting Committee last year, many people were convinced there would be an election soon. But we had to go back to square one after the CDC draft was rejected by the National Reform Council. So, we cannot be completely confident this time.

Nobody can tell with certainty that the second draft written by Meechai Ruchupan and his team from the Constitution Drafting Commission will pass the national referendum scheduled for July.

This draft constitution has come under heavy criticism, even from activists and academics who had earlier voiced support for the junta. Detractors of the draft – particularly leaders of the red-shirt movement who back the old power clique led by the Pheu Thai Party – called on voters to reject the draft. For them, voting against the draft is a way to show their disapproval of the people in power.

Critics of the draft charter agree that it contains no clear guarantee on the rights and freedoms of individuals and communities. Such a guarantee should be a “selling point” for every new constitution written after a military coup in order to compensate the illegitimate and undemocratic process of abolishing an old constitution and writing a new one.

The drafters explained that they wanted the new constitution to be concise. The draft focused on prohibitions and therefore it did not mention matters that were not prohibited, they said. However, critics argued that without a written guarantee of rights and freedoms, the government could cite the fact that they were not required by law to ensure such rights and freedoms.

It would be interesting to see what would happen next if the draft constitution fails to pass the referendum. The post-coup interim charter has no clause to address this scenario.

There have been two assumptions in case the draft fails the national vote.

First, the process of constitution drafting starts all over again. That means the schedules of the original road map will have to be amended.

Second, the government led by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, who also heads the National Council for Peace and Order, writes a new constitution by themselves. And that charter does not need to be subject to any referendum. The second possibility is more likely. The road map will not delayed further, and this option is in line with General Prayut‘s insistence that the next general election will take place in July next year.

The second option will benefit the powers-that-be in two ways. First, many voters will feel they need to approve the Meechai team’s draft constitution, or the junta will come up with its own charter, which could be worse. Second, even if Meechai’s draft fails to pass the referendum, the people in power can still write a new constitution. So, either way they will gain.

Things should become clearer on this matter soon. At least, the junta will need to amend the interim charter in order to clarify certain clauses that are viewed as unclear. For instance, it is unclear what is required for the draft constitution to pass the referendum – the majority of voters who turn out or majority of total eligible voters.

And it is highly likely that the people in power will make it clear in the interim charter what should be done if the draft fails to pass the national vote. Political developments will become more interesting from now on.

After a trip to China last month, Transport Minister Arkom Termpitayapaisit revealed that Thailand would dramatically change the rail system from a two-way standard gauge to one-way – in order to save construction costs. The portion linking Kaeng Koi-Ma Ta Phut would be put on hold due to low demand and lack of business viability.

If this is the case, the government should cancel the next round of meetings late this month in Beijing and spend the remaining time of this government in rethinking a real strategy and the national interest behind a rail system in this country.

The railway project in Thailand these days is mostly motivated by politics. The deal with China was initiated by the Abhisit Vejjajiva government. It was later modified by the Yingluck Shinawatra administration to craft a plan to improve infrastructure and logistics for Asean connectivity. Yingluck’s plan was killed by the Constitutional Court with the political aim of getting rid of her government.

However the military-installed government, which toppled Yingluck in the May 2014 coup, needed a showcase to illustrate that it could do things better. Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha’s government inked a memorandum of understanding with China in December 2014 during a visit to Bangkok by Chinese premier Li Keqiang.

The MoU was promoted as a successful cooperation between Thailand and China for a model of transportation infrastructure development in the Greater Mekong Sub-region and Asean.

For Prayut, the project was timely as his administration needed to show the international community the junta-run government had a friend indeed to help Thailand continue its development plan, despite the coup and consequent political pressure from Western countries.

In fact, a rail system in Thailand might serve Thai interests less than the Chinese plan to have a transportation network in Southeast Asia, which is its true backyard. Beijing dealt with Laos earlier to connect its rail links from the southern border province of Yunnan to Southeast Asia. A ground-breaking ceremony for the Laos-China rail project was held last December. The project in Thailand was linked along the line with the Laos project. If it succeeds as planned, the route from China to Laos and Thailand would be the first regional railway totally designed and built with Chinese technology, standards and equipment.

Strategically, it is perfect for Beijing to have a land link for its cargo and passengers to Southeast Asia should regional powerhouse, China, have territorial disputes in the South China Sea with someAsean members, notably Vietnam and the Philippines. Thailand’s Map Ta Phut on the Eastern seaboard is an alternative channel to the sea if the route through the South China Sea becomes hard to control.

Thailand, on the contrary, never asked itself whether it really needed such a rail network and what was its purpose. There is no doubt that the Thai rail network, built more than a century ago, badly needs to be upgraded to meet international standards among countries with the same level of development. Middle-income nations like Thailand, the second biggest economy in Southeast Asia, need a modern rail system.

However, judging from minister Arkom’s remarks, Thai governments since the beginning have had no clear vision about the economic viability of a rail system in this country.

“At present, Thailand has no mass goods in need of rail transit, as its mostly single-track (one-way) network has diverted traffic away from the railways for decades, ingraining a reliance on other types of transport,” according to a report by the Economist’s Intelligence Unit.

Moreover, over the past two decades, train passenger numbers have halved, from 88 million per year in 1994 to 44 million in 2014, it said. This is in large part because the road network is in relatively good condition, it added. Trucks, buses and cars are a sufficient and effective means for land transportation. Besides, low cost airlines are changing the mode of travel for large numbers of Thai people these days.

And that poses the question: What is the point in having a modern and expensive rail system, except for the political motivation of pleasing China for other purposes, and the people in government?

Shown at the 65th National Arts and Handicrafts Fair late last month, one of the films shows a schoolboy using money to buy friendships and illegitimate privileges. He is following in the footsteps of his bribe-paying father.

But the film wraps up with an impressive moral – the father is arrested and the son realises that those who kow-tow to him because he is rich will never be his real friends.

Another film that won an award shows a schoolgirl who, despite hoping to find money for her mother’s medical bills and her younger sister’s educational trip, decides not to touch valuables in a bag someone has left behind and does the right thing – she breaks her own piggy bank.

Such themes have been reinforced in Thai society in many different ways.

The majority of Thai citizens complain about deep-rooted corruption in society. In one poll, respondents voiced support for government officials and employees involved in corruption scandals to be transferred to inactive posts. However, many have turned their back on student activists who pressured the junta for a deeper investigation into the scandal involving Rajabhakti Park.

The new team of charter drafters has drawn up an “anti-corruption” draft, which prescribes ethical standards and requires that Cabinet members have no record of grave unethical offences. Indeed, Thailand has several anti-corruption agencies, chief of them being the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The rules are there, but in practice only a few people have been punished despite a rising mountain of related complaints.

Confusion over graft is also rife in the business world.

For years the private-sector Collective Action Coalition against Corruption (CAC) has been lobbying hard to increase the number of companies that have internationally-accepted governance practices.

As of January, the organisation witnessed its member companies increase to 548 from 525 in October 2015, and has already certified 152 for their compliance with anti-graft guidelines. To win the certification, these companies have to comply with tonnes of requirements, including a commitment not to take illicit money or pay bribes to government officials to win contracts.

Yet despite complaints that corruption boosts operating costs and erodes competitiveness, some companies still choose to operate in the grey. At the turn of the year, only a few companies such as Bank of Ayudhya and Total Access Com-munication had publicly announced that they would not welcome New Year gifts.

Then there was an incident surrounding CP All, which may cause further confusion.

The group’s executive chairman, Korsak Chairasmisak, was fined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in December for using insider information to trade Siam Makro shares.

The SEC’s decision stirred criticism: Why was Korsak allowed to remain in his position? Indeed, he did not break any rules that would stop him from remaining as a listed company’s executive. The SEC criteria for listed company directors do not cover insider information for trading stocks. Society has acknowledged the rules, but also questioned the morals of Korsak and CP All’s board of directors.

Some investors reacted by saying they were prepared to suspend investment in the company’s shares. After an urgent meeting on Friday, CP All’s board of directors insisted that Korsak and two other executives had already been penalised and that they could hold on to their jobs given their work performance.

Schools have been urged to include moral and ethics in the curriculum. Yet, from time to time, school principals are found engulfed in corruption allegations. Some are charged with bribing officials to advance their career, while others are alleged to have demanded money from people seeking job contracts. Each year, parents complain about having to pay “tea money” to headmasters to ensure their children are enrolled.

Social guru Mechai Viravaidya said at a function that while schools try to inculcate ethics in children, there is a risk that clear consciences will get blurred in the adult work environment. Temptation does exist in society, no one can argue with that – it’s just that we should stop our darker side from getting the better of us.

CDC chairman Meechai Ruchupan explained this matter in detail last Friday, saying people’s rights and freedoms would be ensured with a universal principle that they would be enjoyed provided no law limited that.

He also said that from now on several fundamental rights and freedoms would principally come under the state’s unprecedented commitments and duties.

At a press briefing, he said: “We have secured people’s rights and freedom and lifted them up a significant degree. This has been done by shifting the way we define people’s rights and freedoms by transferring them to the state’s duties, meaning that from now on the state has the duty, as defined, to ensure people’s rights and freedoms are ensured.”

But critics have voiced concern over how people’s rights and freedoms have been defined in the charter.

Pairote Polpetch, a noted civil lawyer at the state-appointed Law Reform Commission, said the charter would give more power to the state while reducing people’s rights and freedoms, thus creating an imbalance of power and undermining people’s efforts in the past to increase their political participation.

He told a forum at the People’s Council for Reform – a civil organisation network campaigning for major civil-based reform – that this new approach meant that people’s rights and freedoms would become real only when the state took action.

He viewed that as a further weakening of people’s power and their participation in politics.

A clear case in point and the most notable example of this is the absence of community rights for the joint management of the state’s environment, which was firmly addressed in the 1997 and 2007 charters. Community rights in previous charters were the result of a long fight to empower the public to have a greater say in the state’s development. It was always viewed as one of the most significant bargaining power guarantees when dealing with the state so people could determine their own fates.

So, it’s no wonder advocates concerned with rights protection and political participation have cried foul over such a shift. This is not to mention that several more similar rights and freedoms are either absent or toned down in this new draft.

It’s not such a bad idea to explore the idea of trying to give people a guarantee that their rights and freedoms would be secured via the state’s new commitment to doing so, considering the fact that we have long experienced the state’s painful ignorance of people’s rights and power.

But to remove something that is fundamental to people power is much too risky for the overall strength of all of us.

The CDC needs to demonstrate that it is not intent on reducing people power as speculated, by reconsidering this matter so that the necessary rights and freedoms are in the new charter draft.

Because only when these rights and freedoms are secured in a more comprehensive manner will the road leading to a strong democracy be walked along.