The problem that has been diagnosed is significant mismanagement of water stored in critical dams. The ministry now pledges to overhaul water policies and management. He spoke to The Nation’s Piyaporn Wongruang about what has gone wrong with water management and why it has become a problem recently.

What situation are we facing now? Is it a water crisis yet in your view?

I don’t want to blow this up, but to understand what we are facing at present, we may need to go back to the beginning. You may remember that in 2011 we suffered major flooding, and because we feared that we would encounter such a situation again, we significantly adjusted the regulation of water stored in major dams.

Greater volumes of water were released to leave more room at dams for rainwater, but what happened afterwards is that we instead were hit by unusually dry weather and then El Nino. That resulted in consecutive sharp reductions in the water stored at the country’s major dams.

At the end of last year, we had around 4,000 million cubic metres of usable water stored at four major dams feeding the country’s Central plain of Chao Phraya, which dropped to less than half the amount we were supposed to have at the beginning of the dry season.

What did you do after learning about this critical causal factor?

As we looked at the Chao Phraya basin and our water supply in the dams, we prioritised our water usage and gave importance to only three main priorities, which were consumption, ecological maintenance and agriculture.

Now, with the limited amount of water that we have, we are able to release about 18 million cubic metres a day, and water for agricultural purposes in the basin had to be cut off.

However, I would like to assure people in the basin that this directive will help them, and the same is true for Mae Khlong nearby, to get through hard times until the end of July.

What about other regions?

Apart from these two basins, we have allowed committees at the provincial level to help to manage water resources in the areas, and if the problem is beyond their capability, they can ask for assistance at the national level, including from agencies like the Irrigation Department.

That’s happening at Ubon Rat in Khon Kaen province, where water is close to a critical level, and a decision to draw water from the dead storage was needed.

At this point, we have seen reports that at least 10 dams in other regions will see usable water hit critical levels, and urgent measures including the tapping of dead storage water may be applied. The farm sector may see trouble ahead, but again I would like to assure people that water for consumption will be available due to tight water regulations.

Are there areas that are not being irrigated? How do you help to deal with problems in these areas?

There are large areas that are still outside irrigation, even in areas where there are reservoirs. So far the Interior Ministry has declared 15 provinces disaster areas. Forty-two more provinces could follow, based on our monitoring, and we have been coordinating to deliver assistance to people with consumption set as the highest priority.

Measures include water delivery by trucks, which is the best we can do. In addition, the ministry has eight key measures to help relieve economic suffering including providing dry season employment for farmers.

Those involved in water management issues have known for some time that politics played a role in mismanagement. How do you see this?

I don’t want to point a finger at anyone, but it’s clear that now we must focus on benefiting people. The national committee reports to the Cabinet prospective resolutions for major changes in water management.

We have committees governing water at three different levels – national, provincial and local – and I think we have sufficient mechanisms to oversee our water. We just need them to function effectively along with proper water planning.

I don’t think you can say that we centralise water management too much, and thus have been ineffective. What we have have shown is that we are not working alone – water regulation and responsibilities have been decentralised.

Last but not least, we need to look more at demand-side management. The ministry is trying to come up with a map matching farm areas with water resources so farmers will know what crops are best to grow. That’s something newly introduced, but at the end it’s all about all water usage, having more awareness about water issues and cooperation. Water is limited resource and you need to help to save it.

THE ANNUAL REPORT APPEARS TO CONTAIN A LOT OF CRITICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE KINGDOM. HOW DID AI THAILAND CONTRIBUTE TO IT?

I have to explain that research on Thailand was conducted by staff from the AI headquarters in London, not by us. It is AI’s practice worldwide that branches do not research the countries where they are stationed for the sake of safety. The research was conducted according to a research methodology so it can be assured that our facts and figures are provable. AI is also willing to reveal the data to any party upon request.

AI Thailand, however, did help to facilitate the researchers when they visited, for example finding places for them to stay. We also helped with fact checking and provided some corrections when requested. That’s all we did in relation to the annual report.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF AI THAILAND THEN?

We are not meant to write reports on the Kingdom, yet that does not mean that we are not active on domestic issues. We’ve conducted a number of campaigns and sessions on human rights – not to mention made comments and taken action to communicate issues with Thai authorities.

For instance, last year we visited student activists in jail. They were detained because the military claimed that they had broken the ban on the gathering of five or more people. It is our concern, as a human rights watchdog, that freedom of expression is fundamental to citizens.

We have also been notably active on the Muslim Rohingya issue, as Thai authorities prevented the Rohingya at sea from landing in the Kingdom. We campaigned on the issue, provided comments and proposed to our headquarters urgent action.

This agenda is related to international human trafficking and indeed human rights abuses. We are concerned that Thailand could be sanctioned or lose privileges in the international community if the issue remains unresolved.

Apart from those, we also conduct research in neighbouring countries where AI branches are not stationed, for example Myanmar.

CONCERNS OF AI THAILAND AND THE AI HEADQUARTERS SEEM TO FOCUS ON THE MILITARY’S BEHAVIOUR. DOES HEADQUARTERS SET AN AGENDA FOR YOU TO TRACK SPECIFIC ISSUES?

We do have a common agenda that all AI branches work on, such as the death penalty and the abolition of torture. However, on military issues, it can be generally observed through the news that the military’s actions have tended to infringe on citizens’ rights in recent years.

So, it isn’t uncommon for both offices to keep an eye on the issues. The headquarters, however, told us that we must not touch sensitive issues, such as lese majeste. Any remarks on the issue will be delivered by headquarters only.

SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT AI IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE JUNTA RULE?

It is our principle that AI never makes political comments as we consider politics an internal affair. Once any government appears to violate human rights, regardless of how they came to power, we will keep an eye on them. The word “military”, as appearing in the annual report, is basically used to classify a type of government without political implications.

BUT COULD IT BE SAID THAT HOW THE REGIME TOOK POWER DOES AFFECT THE HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS IN CERTAIN WAYS?

I recall an incident shortly after the coup took place, when the military told us to cancel a session on Israel and the Gaza Strip, reasoning that it was related to international politics. Although they never prohibited further actions, it could be said that things have not been the same since the junta came to power.

More civilians have been put on trial in a military court since the last coup. Also last year, temporary military detention for civilian detainees was authorised. All this makes the torture of civilians more likely.

The country is also struggling with issues of freedom of expression, something that other countries have dealt with and do not need to discuss anymore. May I ask, how many countries pursue criminal charges for pressing “like” on a Facebookstatus like Thailand does? All these actions make Thailand rank at the top in both global and Asia-Pacific evaluations of human rights concerns.

HOW HAS THE MILITARY-INSTALLED GOVERNMENT REACTED TO AI THAILAND?

The government appears to worry about our actions. Sometimes they ask us why we don’t present well-rounded information or why we don’t mention the bright side. We can only insist that it is our role, as a watchdog, to observe and question concerns in the country. Moreover, like others who the military is concerned about, I have been invited for “a talk” a few times. Fortunately, maybe, the talks went smoothly and I didn’t have to sign any agreement.

AND VICE VERSA, HOW DOES AI TREAT THE GOVERNMENT?

We basically do what we can and consider this as helping the country. We observe the situation, issue statements and distribute reports while the government can verify our information. In fact, we never think of them as foes. We even collaborated with government sectors, such as the Justice Ministry and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), to enhance the situation.

By working with them, however, I have seen that their capacities can be improved. For instance, I see issues with the NHRC as many of its commissioners are not directly experienced in the field of human rights. The Justice Ministry has worked well with us, but it appears, however, that some officials conclude cases using a form of “vigilantism”, which we don’t think is a righteous way to practise justice.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST, HOW DO YOU SEE HUMAN RIGHTS TRENDS IN THE KINGDOM THIS YEAR?

I only hope they won’t get any worse.

Why was your committee first interested in national strategy development, and initially was it among the work assigned to the committee?

I would like to trace back to my own history a bit. You must know that national strategy development is actually the same issue as public policy development. At the Thailand National Defence College, where I took a class, we have long been emphasising national strategy development, and my own thesis focused on public policy developments and implementation by Thai cabinets.

Each year, the college produces several studies on the subject, but unfortunately these papers often end up on the shelves.

I got serious about this again when I was a member of the now-defunct National Reform Council [NRC]’s public administration committee, where I met a senior student who attended the same college.

We started to seriously discuss the issue and how to materialise what we had studied as we both felt that a national strategy was important. So, under the committee, a subcommittee on the development of a national strategy draft law was set up, chaired by me.

How was the idea developed?

From there, we started to delve into the idea, and we got really serious around early last year. We had piles of research papers at hand from our old college and from overseas. The idea had even inspired a book I liked, “The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for 21st Century” by George Friedman.

Then we sifted through the papers to see how other countries addressed and dealt with it. We learned that several countries, far and near, even neighbouring countries such as Singapore or Malaysia, all had their own national strategies. They used to have nothing, but now they had progressed in their development paths.

As members of the reform body, we looked into the issue and we could see why our country desperately needed such a strategy, too.

Firstly, our country’s development policies are so disconnected, partly because they are tied to political parties’ policies. When there is a change of government, these policies also change. This generally prompts disruption in the implementation and discontinuity in the policies themselves.

An educational policy, for instance, is often disrupted and bent to political parties’ policies. Worse, it is sometimes made populist. Education cannot be populist because it must be based on quality. I always wonder how politicians can turn education into populism.

Secondly, our national development plans are scattered and based on ministries’ missions. Ministries tend to protect their own interests rather than give importance to the integration of development plans.

Some plans may be integrated with the efforts made by the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), but these mostly focus on social and economic development purposes.

Such scattered plans then consequently affect the state budget distribution. Our state budget is set following these disconnected plans, and hardly effectively in responding to the country’s needs.

With almost all of policy development dominated by the state or politicians, we can barely see people able to participate in determining their future in this country. The level of public participation in this aspect is relatively low at present.

And lastly, developed countries generally have national strategies to help guide their development paths, so should Thailand.

After our literacy reviews and analyses, we then started to look at the country’s needs to see what we really wanted to achieve. We then came up with the country’s vision for the next 20 years as well as the national strategy development framework.

If the country is like a plane, our national strategy would be its flight plan that would help to guide the plane’s direction.

As the country was entering a phase of reform, we thought it’s the time.

What happened afterwards?

Our committee then developed a national strategy draft law as a key driver of the national strategy. We then proposed it to the NRC, which endorsed it in June of last year.

Did the government know anything about this?

I would like to put it this way: I think it had some staff observing the work. I can say this because shortly before we submitted our report to the government in early July, if you remember, the prime minister on his weekly programme stated clearly that national strategy development would be part of his government’s policies. And on June 30, the Cabinet then resolved to set up “a national strategy development [preparation] committee”, which clearly reflected his intentions.

Afterwards, we held discussions with various sectors. The NRC also held more than 900 forums in at least 10 districts in each province to gauge people’s opinions about the charter being drafted at that time. And at those forums we also asked people what they wished to see in the future.

We actually brought people’s opinions back to ask our 18 committees before synthesising them into a set of data inputs, which were then forwarded to the newly set up national committee.

I learned that they had assigned the NESDB [National Economic and Social Development Board] to develop a national strategy model based on the inputs. From there, the long-term plan would include a five-year development directive, which would be in line with the five-year economic and social development plans.

So, I can say that this is all about the country’s development. It has nothing to do with politics.

So the government had nothing to do with this idea as has been speculated?

As I said, it might have had its own staff monitoring news and updates, and learned of developments from there.

Or you would rather like to ask me straightforwardly, wouldn’t you? Whether we had received “an order” from someone to do this? I would tell you that, it’s “S” which told me to do this. “S” means “samnuek”, or consciousness, which told me that it’s time to reform the country. If we do not, the damage would be irreparable.

I would like to insist here that there was no one telling us to do this. But I can tell you that we did collaborate after the NRC had endorsed our report.

You must know that the prime minister is a soldier, and as a soldier, he and any civil servants working on security issues are very familiar with and keep an eye on any strategic developments, I trust.

I used to work as a secretary to the Cabinet, and was given a strategic security report from the National Security Council to study.

Unfortunately, the NSC’s security planning normally covers only security issues, while the NESDB covers only social and economic aspects. You can see a loophole in our country’s strategic planning here. So, that’s also the reason why we need holistic strategic planning, and our draft law will help close this loophole.

It will also help integrate all the plans, and help set priorities for the country’s development goals as well as the budget spending. You may have noticed that the new charter draft has addressed that spending must be in line with the strategy, and this could help prevent politicians from exploiting the state budget. It should not be like that anymore, right?

You said you two [the government and Yongyuth’s committee] finally got connected. Then how have you been working together ever since?

After the Cabinet set up the new committee and received our report, it then sent to “a Gen” [a General] to join our meetings. This was a bit semi-formal because he observed the progress and exchanged ideas with us. This lasted around two months before the NRC was dissolved.

We had agreed that my committee would focus on developing the mechanisms including the new draft law, while it [the government] would work on developing the strategy content.

I and other committee members also went to meet some key figures of the government. We worked together openly.

So, now you can see when we actually met and worked together.

I must say they never interfered with our work or touched our draft law. After the NRC dissolved, the Gen [that General] never came back.

What happened after the NRC was dissolved?

The NRSA was set up to replace it, and we set up a new working group to brush up the draft law. This time we invited representatives from other sectors including from the private and civil sectors to join the group to help broaden our perspective. Meanwhile, we still communicated with the government’s committee via another military officer.

We then forwarded our report and the draft law to the NRSA, which later endorsed it with a majority vote of 164.

Some NRSA members recommended changes to the draft law and we took them into consideration. In conclusion, the new draft law was changed from the previous version by around 15 per cent.

What was changed following the recommendations, for instance, included a clause regarding a new joint committee that would be set up in case Parliament and the National Strategy Committee disagreed on policy. The new committee would include representatives from both Parliament and the National Strategy Committee, and would deliberate to resolve the disagreement. Once the joint committee reached a solution, it would return its recommendations to Parliament, bypassing the National Strategy Committee, and Parliament would have the final say.

Some political observers have said the new committee proposed in the draft law has been designed to help prolong the tenure of those in power?

The bodies under the draft law include the National Strategy Committee acting as a policy committee, the management committee overseeing administration and the secretary’s office.

The policy committee or board would initially, as addressed under Article 55 in the provisional chapter, comprise 25 members, 22 of whom would be selected to represent 12 major reform agendas. The final three members would be the prime minister, the NRSA chair and National Legislative Assembly [NLA] president.

I would like to stress here that these memberships would be attached to their positions. If you are not in a position that has been mentioned, how could you sit along with the others, right? This is nothing to do with fixed terms, it’s really about positions used to determine whether someone is in or out of the committee.

If you were not the NLA president, how could you still sit and work with the others? Neither could a prime minister. If PM Prayut [Chan-o-cha] was not a prime minister, then he would have to leave the board. So, drop it – the speculation that there would be an attempt to prolong power this way.

There has also been some effort to liken the committee to the former National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Committee (NSRRC), but I would like to say that they are different.

You can see that we have no army leaders sitting on the committee, unlike the NSRRC. There would be one or a few coming in due to the quota of 22 experts for the 12 reform agendas. That’s it. And to be fair, we need to include security as part of the agendas.

So, you will see that it’s not prolonging power, but continuing the reform agenda. A critical question that we need to ask is, whether we can still be indifferent to see the country continue like this without any clear path?

But some people still say this body may overrule future governments, if not prolong the current government’s power?

In the end it’s up to Parliament, which would deliberate and endorse policy, as I told you earlier. So, the board has no power to decide anything at all, it only has duties. If it found critical damage as a result of governments’ failure to implement a strategy, it would help alert concerned agencies. It would act as “an X-ray machine” and its findings must be open to the public.

But the strategy would still tie governments up?

Well, let’s say that we have worked for them, for fruitful outcomes. We have good politicians, and we also have bad politicians. If they were bad, do you think that they would pursue such a thing like this?

If politicians think that the strategy would affect their work, they can actually change that, as we have stated clearly that the strategy will be subject to a review every five years. So, why are politicians so bothered about it? Do good politicians not want to see the country move forward for the better?

We would not have seen large-scale corruption like what happened in the rice-pledging scheme if we had had the strategy and relevant mechanisms in place.

People may have think that this is all about a handful of people working to determine the country’s future, but I must say that we have actually come up with a new clause stating clearly that public participation will exist in all processes concerning the strategy, from development to assessment.

Do you think the government will take up your proposal, considering the surrounding controversies?

I think we have tried to think it through as thoroughly as we could, although not perfectly yet. I cannot say at this point that they will go ahead with the idea, but I would like to compare it with a 4×100 metres relay race. I have done my part and passed it on to them, so I will from now on sit in the stands and give them a loud cheer.

Not only was Thai Rak Thai dissolved, 111 Thai Rak Thai Party executives were banned from political activities for five years by the 2007 Consitutional Court’s ruling.

The Nation interviewed Pheu Thai caretaker secretary-general Phumtham Wechayachai about the events, what can be done to prevent a similar scenario from recurring, and his views about the future of the Pheu Thai Party.

Phumtham: The Supreme Court found Thai Rak Thai not guilty – but the party had already been dissolved. General Thammarak [Issarangkula] was acquitted but I was in the group of 111 executives who faced a five-year political ban. It was like getting a death sentence without being guilty. The coup-makers had given themselves an amnesty in advance. The other side could not demand justice. What happened to us could not be corrected. Not a single word of apology and no rehabilitation.

Now, we want to tell people we oppose the move in the charter draft to give too much power to similar independent agencies. What happened to us was a costly lesson and should never happen again. In the democratic world, this was a big deal.

Some agencies now have greater power over other agencies. Do not put more faith in “good people” instead of in a good system. Critics have questioned the proposals of by the Constitution Drafting Commission [CDC] led by Meechai Ruchupan and have doubted their faith in the “good people”.

THIS CHARTER DRAFT HAS COME UNDER HEAVY CRITICISM.

Society has witnessed [before] that it could lead to problems. Criticism of this draft is getting louder than that for the charter drafted by the Borwornsak Uwanno-led CDC, and the 2007 charter by the Council of National Security. Critics even included people from government allies and supporters of the National Council for Peace and Order.

This is because of differences in political ideologies. For instance, allowing parties to nominate three PM candidates who would be non-elected. Though charter drafters argue that this is Thai-style democracy, the world’s idea of democracy does not accept this. Anyone who wants to be PM should have the courage to stand for and be elected by the people.

Debates should be held for the media and educational institutions to scrutinise the charter draft openly, the way the United Kingdom held its debates over whether Scotland should be independent from the UK. Let the people think for themselves and accept the results of the people’s verdict.

WHAT IS THE PHEU THAI PARTY’S STANCE ABOUT THIS CHARTER DRAFT AND WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF THE PARTY UNDER THE SO-CALLED “CORRUPTION-BUSTING CHARTER”?

Today it seems we are getting a minority rule over the majority; and a system that allows extra-constitutional power, which is not linked to an election by the people.

This is a messy democracy that distorts democratic principles. This is very bad and has never happened before. I affirm that these rules are abnormal because they are newly invented.

My party does not want to jump to any conclusion till the draft is final. Our party stance is to adhere to democracy and fight to bring back democracy. The people must decide the future of the country. The new generation rules the world. The whole world has awakened, except Thailand.

IF SOME ISSUES IN THE DRAFT ARE NOT CHANGED, WILL THE PHEU THAI BOYCOTT THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION?

We have not yet had time to think about it. The party is telling the CDC to do what is acceptable to society. We are not spelling out what we will lose from the charter – but what society will lose. We are pointing out what is hell and what is heaven.

I am not instigating turmoil but I want the country to move in the best direction. There is still time to change. Everyone believes good charters must be amenable to a changing society. Do not block changes, because Thailand must keep up with the world.

WHO SHOULD LEAD THE COUNTRY FROM NOW ON, BECAUSE THAKSIN SHINAWATRA, SOMCHAI WONGSAWAT AND YINGLUCK SHINAWATRA HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED?

Party leaders must have a vision for the future. Our party has many qualified personnel. We have to ask the opinions of our members and see what society wants.

We have to look at the country’s situation and its rules.

We believe society must accept our party if our party wants to achieve success.Pheu Thai works as a team. It is too soon to talk about party leadership.

Somchai Srisutthiyakorn, the election commissioner responsible for administering the election, shared the preparations he has made for the upcoming referendum as well as the challenges ahead with The Nation’s Piyaporn Wongruang.

WE HAVE HAD REFERENDUMS HELD BEFORE; HOW WILL A REFERENDUM THIS TIME BE DIFFERENT FROM IN THE PAST?

The referendum this time has a focus on readjustment based on three main principles so that we can gain clearer objectives and approaches. We think a referendum should embrace the people’s convenience at its heart, it should also be just and fair, and lastly it should help boost “quality democracy”. As we came up with the main principles, we translated them into our plans and approaches.

SO, THE FIRST PRINCIPLE IS ABOUT PEOPLE’S CONVENIENCE?

We want people to experience the utmost convenience as we wish to see as many as possible come out and cast a ballot. So, we have been reviewing the [polling] timing, locations and procedures to facilitate voting the most. That’s the reason why we have moved the closing time for a poll station from 3pm to 4pm. Secondly, we have come up with a new application, called “Dao Nuea” or “the Northern Star”, to help direct people to a poll station. There is some other new technology to support people including online registration.

This is a new dimension for our future elections because it has changed the whole mindset about an election, from a conventional approach that says people should find their own way to cast a ballot, to a new approach that is based on people’s convenience so as many as possible can come out and cast a ballot.

WHAT ABOUT THE SECOND PRINCIPLE?

The second principle is about how to hold a fair and just referendum. As we know, our society now is deeply divided and people stand against one another, so it’s quite a challenge to hold a fair and just referendum for something important like the charter draft.

Some people may say if the charter draft fails in this referendum, it’s the EC’s responsibility, but I must say a referendum is about opening space for all to express something important about their lives, not pulling people out to accept something. So, we will be there to ensure that people have space to express themselves on the charter draft and make a decision about it.

This is actually what a referendum means, and the EC must have a lot of courage to make such a space. And that’s the reason why we have come up with rules and procedures to regulate the referendum this time.

Q SO, YOU HAVE PREPARED PROCEDURES ALREADY, ESPECIALLY IN REGARD TO PEOPLE’S CAMPAIGNS AHEAD OF THE VOTE?

A This is what I would like to call a dilemma. We are walking a fine line to make it fair and just. We are trying to balance between how to make people campaign so other people receive balanced information enough to make an independent decision, while not falling prey to political interests or hidden agendas. So, we think we will base campaigns on this rationale.

How to do this? We have come up with guidelines that say people who wish to campaign must group together and register with us first. Then they have to express their position to show us their plans of activities. If we see these are deemed to stir disturbances, we will call them off and offer alternatives, including public debates.

Actually, we have also planned to hold debates on TV to ensure both sides have equal space to express their views on critical issues in the charter draft ahead of the referendum. TV debates will happen about 10 times.

In addition, we have also proposed a new act to facilitate and secure the referendum. It would come with penalties for violating the act.

The penalties would be based under the Election Act. For instance, vote buying is prohibited, and so is using drama and plays to lure voters.

Or if people try to close or disrupt a poll, they would face a jail term of one year or a fine of no more than Bt20,000.

We want to see the law enacted around April, but if it is not in time, we would ask the Cabinet to issue a Royal decree.

This is the principle of doing what is right, no matter how threatened the principle is, and the EC must stand firm, no matter if it faces colour-coded voters or military officers at a poll. If they are deemed to be disturbing the vote, we will call them out.

AND THE LAST PRINCIPLE IS ABOUT A “QUALITY DEMOCRACY”. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

Looking at the past, we see that many of us somehow have made decisions without having well-rounded information following political competition. So, the challenge in the referendum this time is how people can get well-rounded information so they can make a fully independent decision.

At first we thought of printing and distributing around 17 million copies of the charter draft, but now we have agreed to pursue every means to disseminate information, especially with the help of new technology such as applications and mobile phones to get people information about the draft.

I must say the last one is the most difficult as it involves a number of people in this country. We have to accept that we are in a society which is deeply divided, and our views are very polarised, and influenced one way or another.

I must say that The success of this task cannot be assured by the EC alone. Political figures, the media and others can help. At least, don’t add further fuel to the fire.

IT SEEMS YOU HAVE PREPARED WAYS TOWARDS THE REFERENDUM ALREADY, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE UNSETTLED ISSUE CONCERNING AN AMBIGUOUS VOTE COUNT?

We have agreed that the interim charter will be revised on this point within one month. So, we will correct the wording to make it clear that use a majority of voters who turn out, not eligible voters, will be necessary to pass the referendum. It’s just a wording problem that we can correct, not a big deal.

WHAT WILL BE NEXT IF THE CHARTER DRAFT CANNOT PASS THIS REFERENDUM?

If the charter draft is rejected, the EC will have nothing to do next, but other concerned agencies will, including the government. But if the draft passes the referendum, then the EC will in its next step prepare an election. We would then have to work further on necessary organic laws to pave the way for an election. Actually we have roughly prepared three or four drafts already.

THE REFERENDUM SEEMS TO BE LIKE A TEST FOR THE EC ITSELF AS WELL FOR ITS ROLE IN THE FUTURE?

It will show us how an election and administrations regarding it will move into the future.

Under this charter draft, the EC’s role and authority will also be strengthened because we are demanded to help boost quality politics via effective screening of quality politicians. In my view, we have been provided with quite complete authority that we can enforce from the start by the determination of an election date. This is very important as it can create advantages and disadvantages in politics.

From now on, we do not have to consult with the government in order to determine an election date.

The government will not have any role in this, only the EC.

The EC will also be able to give a red card to corrupt candidates. We can investigate and give a red card one year after an election, but this decision would have to be forwarded to a court to rule on it because consequences would be severe: a lifetime ban in politics.

ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE COMING REFERENDUM?

I’m not, in terms of performance of duties. But like I said, if there were any worries, I would be worried the most about the No-3 task (how people can learn the facts and make a decision without being politically influenced while society is deeply divided like this).

THE NEW draft constitution is based on Thailand’s problems and bitter experiences, particularly involving corruption, the chief drafter says.

Meechai Ruchupan, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Commis-sion (CDC), said that the new charter took the country’s problems into account.

“The drafters considered problems happening in Thailand and we did not pay much attention to problems taking place overseas,” Meechai said. “Democracies are different from one country to another. Every country needs to create mechanisms that are suitable to what they are or their bitter experiences.

“Constitutions often reflect the bitter past of the countries before their charters were drafted. This constitution also reflects the bitter experiences of Thailand, particularly corruption, which is considered real bitterness for the whole country,” he told Nation TV’s Kom Chad Luek talk show.

However, the chief drafter admitted that the new charter did not cover all problem areas identified by the ruling National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO). He said that in regard to reconciliation, the draft simply set general guidelines to encourage reconciliation, while political conflict still exists.

“I hope this constitution will provide a solution for the country. It is written to cover possible problems in the future although we do not know what will happen,” he said.

Meechai also defended certain provisions in the draft charter that came under heavy criticism.

He attempted to allay concern that a requirement for political parties to disclose names of their prime ministerial candidates would allow the NCPO to inherit its power. He explained that with the nominations unveiled publicly months before the election, voters would be able to choose not to vote for the party that nominated a PM candidate they disliked.

When asked why the draft charter does not require that the prime minister be an elected MP, Meechai said this is to allow the winning party’s PM candidate to become government head although he or she may fail to get elected. “You can’t be too sure your candidates will definitely win,” he added.

In regard to fears that the powerful Constitutional Court may have more power than the government, Meechai said he did not think so, as the court could only rule on issues involving the constitution. He said a provision allowing the court to make rulings on issues not noted in the charter would help the country get out of future deadlocks and prevent political crises.

The chief drafter noted alleged attempts to distort the content of the draft constitution in a bid to have it rejected in the referendum.

“They used half-truths to deceive people. We have to deal with this by telling the truth,” he said.

Meechai said the drafters would revise certain clauses, particularly involving the rights and freedoms of individuals and communities, in response to concerns from civil society. In response to claims that he is serving the military, Meechai said: “I work to serve for the good people. It’s not because it’s fun or it brings me fame. I do it for the country.”

Yesterday, Meechai said the drafters might add a chapter about reforms, as suggested by critics. “There is no problem if we need to,” he said.

He added that the drafters were waiting for input from Cabinet and the National Strategic Reform Assembly about this.

The summit was initiated by US President Barrack Obama, who was keen to follow up on his successful visits to Asean states, Davies told The Nation in an interview yesterday.

“It will be the first time to have a gathering of Asean leaders hosted by the States,” he said.

The summit will follow the direction of Asean-US strategic partnerships.

“The summit will be of greater benefit for Thailand, Asean and the US,” he said.

However, he said the US was still working out collaboration with partners in Asean countries for the Summit.

The President announced in Kuala Lumpur in November that he would hold the meeting. It will be staged at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California, on February 15-16, the White House website said.

The unprecedented gathering builds on the deeper partnership that the United States has forged with Asean since 2009 and will further advance the Administration’s rebalance to Asia and the Pacific. For nearly 40 years, the United States and Asean have worked toward stability, prosperity, and peace in Southeast Asia.

Ambassador Davies, meanwhile, was also looking forward to seeing Thailand and the United States co-host the annual Cobra Gold military exercise in different areas across the Kingdom from February 9-19.

“It will be my first Cobra Gold. It will be interesting to observe the drill,” he said.

 

HOW DO YOU THINK THE COUNTRY CAN ACHIEVE RECONCILIATION?

It starts from Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha. It does not matter how many reconciliation panels are appointed. It depends only on the PM. Prayut has given himself amnesty. As a red shirt leader, I do not ask for amnesty but I would ask him to give amnesty to all sides. Leave leaders to fight court cases.

I do not agree with a blanket amnesty. My group sees things differently over this issue.

I and Suthep (Thaugsuban) look at a blanket amnesty differently. Suthep sees it in terms of corruption cases. I look at it as murder cases. I believe both corruption and murder cases should not be given amnesty.

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE RED SHIRTS WILL CONTINUE IT STRUGGLE WITHOUT TAKING THAKSIN’S (SHINAWATRA) ISSUES INTO ACCOUNT?

The red shirts fight for democratic principles. We did not fight just for one person. Whatever the people get from our fight, Thaksin will receive as just that.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TELL THE RED SHIRTS NOT TO GET THAKSIN INVOLVED IN THEIR STRUGGLE FOR DEMOCRACY?

In fact, Thaksin opponents cannot let go of the issue. If you follow us closely, you know we do not agree with Thaksin in many issues. We do not agree with a blanket amnesty.

THE PHEU THAI PARTY IS STILL SEEN AS THE OTHER LEG OF THE RED SHIRTS. BUT NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES POLITICAL PARTIES UNDER THE THAKSIN CAMP WERE DISSOLVED, THEY RESURRECTED BECAUSE OF THAKSIN. IS THERE A NEED TO REFORM PHEU THAI TO LIBERATE IT FROM THAKSIN?

I talked about reforming the party and the UDD [United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship] after the coup was staged. I told the party that an election victory is not important because after that we lost we could not keep the power. The point now is no longer an election victory for us. We must reform so that we can achieve a sustainable democracy. We are not always right. We made mistakes. If we do not adjust and improve ourselves we will lose in the long term.

WILL THE PHEU THAI PARTY SURVIVE WITHOUT THAKSIN?

Actually Thaksin has not been on the scene for a long time. He is the history of Pheu Thai. Thailand cannot avoid vicious circles of an election, people getting killed, another election – politicians and the military taking turns in power. But it is the people who are killed. I am not going to tell the military to empathise with the people but I am telling politicians that you must be democracy fighters and not electioneers. Otherwise we will not survive.

WHEN DID YOU LAST TALK TO THAKSIN?

After I was released by the coup-makers. He called and asked about my well-being.

THE RED SHIRTS ARE SEEN AS TRYING TO HELP YINGLUCK SHINAWATRA WITH HER COURT CASES.

I met Yingluck and told her that the coup-makers want to pressure her to escape. They don’t really want her to pay the compensation. I told her to keep a peace of mind by going to temples. If she escapes she will not be able to return.

YINGLUCK WILL NOT ESCAPE LIKE HER BROTHER?

Thaksin fleeing the country became a costly lesson. I am not sure, if Thaksin had stayed in the country, what the situation would have been. The amount of compensation they have demanded from her clearly shows that they do not want her in the country. I told her be strong, do not panic. Whatever they want, do the opposite.

DO YOU THINK YINGLUCK WILL BE STRONG ENOUGH, SINCE SHE FACES BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL SUITS?

Whatever will be will be. I did not instigate anyone to commit a wrong and be sent to jail. I believe they want to push her out of the country and do not want to return money.

BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE PREVENTING HER FROM ESCAPING.

In reality, they want her to flee, but it is not easy. Had Thaksin stayed in the country, the country would not have turned out like this.

YOU MEAN HE CANNOT RETURN TO THE COUNTRY?

I believe the chance is dim. Everyone loves Thaksin and wants him to return home.

THE RED SHIRTS WANT TO CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE TO REJECT THE CHARTER DRAFT IN A PUBLIC REFERENDUM. BUT IF THE DRAFT IS REJECTED, A GENERAL ELECTION WOULD BE DELAYED.

It is the same way as trying to pressure Yingluck to flee. We are being pressured to have an election without taking into account the rules.

The charter is not democratic. The charter draft says the charter cannot be amended unless more than 40 per cent of political parties agree to an amendment.

If the junta wants to remain in power for life, let them. If they want to return power, they must return full power. If there is going to be a general election, there must be democracy. If the charter is undemocratic, we must vote it down. I am not sure if I will get to do it. I fear others will do it before me, like with the first charter draft by Borwornsak (Uwanno).

THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED IT WOULD BE REJECTED IN A REFERENDUM.

I believe this latest one will also be rejected because of the content. The intention is to allow a non-elected PM.

DO YOU THINK THE JUNTA WANTS THE CHARTER DRAFT TO PASS IN A REFERENDUM?

Everyone wants to stay in power. Power is addictive.

IF YOU CAMPAIGN TO REJECT THE CHARTER, WILL THEY STAY ON IN POWER?

Final-stage patients cannot live long. I am not afraid, because I see that they are in the final stage and a doctor cannot prolong their life. Power is addictive. If they think that by having the charter rejected they can cling on to power, then they do not understand Thai politics.

IS PHEU THAI GOING TO BOYCOTT |ELECTIONS?

I have no idea but I believe the charter draft will be rejected, so there is no use talking about boycotting the election.

WHAT WOULD BE THE POLITICAL DIRECTION IF THAT WERE THE CASE?

I have no idea but I feel they’re writing the charter draft so that it cannot get to be used.

YOU BELIEVE THEY ONLY WANT THE CHARTER NOT TO BE ACCEPTED IN A PLEBISCITE AND DON’T WANT TO PUT PHEU THAI UNDER CONTROL?

If they write such a charter draft, Pheu Thai will just go to the polls to meet death. Even if we win we cannot rule. What is the use?

IF THERE IS AN ELECTION, WHO WOULD BE THE PARTY’S NO 1 (PRIME MINISTER CANDIDATE)?

The party has not planned that.

WHO DO YOU WANT TO BE THE NEXT PM?

Whoever comes through the correct path and has a democratic spirit and does not see people as the enemy. A narrow-minded person cannot solve the country’s problem.