Print
|
The constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land: all other laws cannot contradict the constitution. The constitution should constitute a set of values and principles agreed upon and respected by the citizens of a country.
This, however, clearly cannot apply to Thailand. 18 constitutions have been put into used since the beginning of constitutional monarchy in 1932. Virtually every time after a military coup took place, the existing constitution would be scrapped and a new one would be written. Thus, instead of being the supreme law of the land, most Thai constitutions are best seen as a product of power struggle between powerful groups. The constitutions are written to serve the interests of the group in power and to weaken their opponents. ......... The 1997 Constitution was probably the only constitution which the public actively participated in the drafting process. In that constitution, any coup attempt was stated as unconstitutional. Yet, the September 2006 coup happened without too much strong opposition from the Thai society. In fact, many supported and justified the coup as a "good" coup. Indeed, this shows that the constitution is everything but the supreme law of the land. The military that took power in 2006 then started a process of drafting a new constitution. The drafting process was dictated by the military leaders and involved very little public participation. The draft was passed by a referendum in August 2007, with 57.8% of the eligible voters voted yes and 42.4% voted no. The figures suggest anything but consensus. Clearly, the 2007 does not represent an agreed-upon set of values or principles. This constitution, like most others, is written to serve the interests of the coup leaders. Apart from clearing themselves off from any wrongdoing for their coup attempt, the coup leaders tried to ensure that Thaksin and co would be put into extinction by the constitution. The constitution is merely a tool used by powerful interests to achieve their own aims. What is sad is that many of the Thai public don't even realize that they are being fooled. ......... Despite its highly questionable legitimacy, the 2007 constitution has produced a lot of crucial political outcomes. It has resulted in the ban of many politicians and dissolution of several political parties. It has produced two elected, coalition governments and removed two prime ministers from office. It has produced a Senate that is only partially elected. It has produced an increased role and influence of the judiciary. Attempts to amend parts of the constitution have led to protests, clashes, bloodsheds, chaos and airport closures. Most recently, it has produced, not without criticisms, a new coalition government led by the Democrat Party. However, for all its "achievements", the constitution has not resolved the political conflict nor alleviated the deep political and social division. It has not produced a clean, legitimate and effective government acceptable to most if not all Thais. Worse still, the constitution has not been applied to every group equally. While the constitution has "punished" several politicians and political parties, it has not punished protesters - red and yellow shirts alike - who clearly violated the constitution by staging unlawful armed protests in various public spaces including the airports, a TV station and the Parliament House. In other words, while the constitution has been powerful in some areas, it is nothing but a piece of paper in others. Simply put, the constitution has been politicized and used for political advantage for certain groups against the others. ......... With an arguably "illegal" supreme law of the land, how can we even debate on the various political developments that have been produced or influenced by the constitution? Why do we need to bother reading or following this arguably yucky constitution? If someone does something unconstitutional, how can we conclude that he/she has done something bad? Why should we respect the ruling of the Constitutional Court that is based on a questionable constitution? With such a controversial constitution in place, everything can only be concluded as constitutional or unconstitutional, but nothing can be concluded about right or wrong, legitimate or illegitimate, and democratic or undemocratic. Forget the "legal state"; it's "power state" down here. Whoever is more powerful will win the fight. People's voice and everything else ultimately don't count. Thailand, in a nutshell, is the land of no just law. |
|
"If you are not member, please register to comment. It take only a few steps." member sign in | member register |
| << | December 2008 | >> | ||||
| s | m | t | w | t | f | s |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||