• Ginola
  • ranking : General member
  • created : 2007-11-13
  • entry : 63
  • visitors : 30419
  • votes : 25
  • send msg :
A Man's Random Walk
politik, economik, foreign affairs
Permalink : http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola
Wednesday , December 24 , 2008
On Thai Constitutions
Posted by Ginola , Reader : 899 , 13:38:20  
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.

Read comment

comment 7
massein date : 25/12/2008 time : 19.08
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

The constitution is not something written in stone, It should be a living document that serves the need of all citizens of the nation. The US constitution was the result of previous documents such as the Magna Carta of the Britten . Which laid the foundation Free men and women yearn for. But Certain rights are inviolable., and should not be infringe upon, Such as is claim in the US Bill of Rights, But even these rights or sometime confusing, and require the interpretation of more learn men such as the constitutional judges. But also there has to be a right for free man to stand up for his convictions, and yes even pay the ultimate price for these rights. John Hancock recognize this obligation
when he most boldly sign the Declaration Of Independence .In a manner that no man could DOUBT
his fever and conviction. The Citizens of Thailand, have a right to demand accountability from those that presume to lead the Nation, to boldly declare yourself.
Do not hide behind the skirts of your parties or political masters. If your cause is just, don't back down. Be prepared to pay the price for you convictions.,don't hide and accuse the press of miss quoting. Don't be a coward. If your cause was jut be prepare to pay the price, and history will remember you, Even if you Hang today.
comment 6
iceberg date : 25/12/2008 time : 04.33
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ranchhand

Recent rulings by the courts, I am totally believe in your last paragraph and last sentence. Plus, your today's opinion will certainly be more believable when the case of treasons against those public agitators declared by the court as not guilty dues to the lack of sufficient evidence against them.
comment 5
FOS date : 24/12/2008 time : 23.43
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Dom

Perfectly written Ginola....
comment 4
FelixQui date : 24/12/2008 time : 15.24
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

massein,
I am not American, but the excellent US Constitution, which has stood the test of time very well, has much to offer by way of examples that have a proven history of working well to the benefit of an entire nation and people.
First, teh US Constitution is admirably brief. It does not seek to micro-manage in tedious, confusing and restrictive detail.
Second, it provides real and substantial protection for human rights and a framework for a healthy democracy.
Third, it very explicitly defines and limits the power of teh central government.
And fourth, it is indeed of the people, by the people and for the people. And continues to be generally well understood, admired and respected by the people.

Yes, it requires a Supreme Court to rule on the inevitable conflicts and confusions. I strongly disagree with some of the US Supreme Court's decisions, generally concurring with Justice Thomas's dissents from the majority, whose rulings, although he was appointed by Bush the 1st., are clearly not dictated by any prejudice or desire to please any Bush or other lobby group. Nonetheless, the strong and independent US Supreme Court is another shining example to the rest of the world, especially its Thai equivalent.

Even a constitutional monarchy has much to learn from the US political and judicial system. My own country is also a constitutional monarchy, and, with the odd amendment, has been getting along quite happily on the same constitution for more than a century now; still, mainly for the above reasons, I think the US example is even better.

Just because Bush the 2nd. was a scum bag who sought to gut the Constitution, does not make that constitution bad; it has survived quite well, whilst Bush is already being eagerly written off.
comment 3
ys-lai date : 24/12/2008 time : 15.16
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ys-lai

Well done! If most Thai think like you. There will be peace and smile again
comment 2
massein date : 24/12/2008 time : 14.53
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

The constitution are all written to empower and protect special interest groups, are to remove power of a special interest group. It took the United States 11 years after declaring independence from Britain to Ratified the Constitution it has been amended 27 Times, The first 10 amendments or considered the Bill of Rights,and Anyone that attempts to infringe up on those rights or in for a fight. So the US has been work on perfecting it Constitution has taken 223 years. Perhaps Thailand should consider amending not rewriting its Constitution. I understand that the current Constitution is fairly close to the 97 Constitution. But these amendments do have to be approved by the people not the Parliament, To have legitimacy Please don't Flame Me for mentioning the nasty USA
comment 1
FelixQui date : 24/12/2008 time : 13.41
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Well said.
Comment

  "If you are not member, please register to comment.
It take only a few steps."


  |  
name :  
email :  
website :  
comment :  
   
   

back top

<< 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