as some want jobs in new oversight regime.
Suspicions have emerged that certain members of the National
Reform Council shot down the draft charter in the hope they
would be chosen for a new reform steering body to be appointed
by the prime minister.
The NRC's rejection of the draft Sunday by 135-105 votes with
seven abstentions effectively pushes back the elections to about
April 2017. NRC members with close ties to the military lobbied
heavily to reject the draft that contained the controversial
"crisis panel" that would allow a 23-man body to take over
executive and legislative powers from an elected government
if a national crisis emerged.
President Thienchay Kiranandana organised one final photo
op for his National Reform Council before it went out of
business, with evidence surfacing that rejection of the draft
charter was all about job security.
(Photo by Pattarapong Chatpattarasill)
The vote has brought about the end of the
NRC. But the
National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA) will be
established
within 30 days to replace the NRC.
Fixing blame: Drafters 'must take
responsibility'
The steering assembly will comprise 200
members appointed
by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha. The role of that
assembly
is to advise the prime minister on national reforms. About 100
members
of the steering assembly will come from among former
NRC members. This
effectively means the government will
chart the direction of reforms as a new
charter drafting body
comprising 21 members starts work on a new draft.
NRC members who voted in support of the
draft said their
colleagues who voted against the draft charter did not do so
because they were opposed to provisions deemed undemocratic
like the crisis
panel.
Over the past two weeks, Gen Prayut had voiced support for
the
so-called crisis intervention panel, saying the panel is
needed to prevent a
crisis during a transition to full democracy.
Some NRC members hoped that if they voted
against the draft,
they would be appointed to sit on the steering assembly,
said
one former NRC member. "The rejection of the draft was a
matter of
bargaining for seats on the NRSA. They hoped
the prime
minister would put them back into the steering
assembly, '' the member said.
Supporters of the draft and
the CDC members were dismayed that Gen Prayut did not
do enough to stop military-aligned members
from campaigning
against the draft.
Gen Prayut had insisted that he would not
intervene in the vote
on the draft and that all NRC members were free to vote
as they
saw fit. "From now on, nobody will
dare work with the NRC,''
said the former member said. With the draft charter
rejected,
the National Council for Peace and Order will now appoint
a new
charter drafting committee. The committee has six months
to come up with a
draft, by March next year. This new draft,
without further screening, will be
put to a referendum by
July next year. If this draft passes the the referendum, another
six months will be
needed to draft organic laws. This means
elections will be held three months
later, around April 2017.
Paiboon Nititawan, a former CDC member, said he voted
in
support of the draft, but he accepted the rejection of the draft
as its
opponents were entitled to their opinions.
Mr Paiboon said the vote against the
draft means the majority
of the NRC did not want the country to get trapped in a fresh
round
of conflict from the draft charter, given strong resistance
to the draft ahead of
the vote. He said if the NRC had
approved the draft, political turmoil would probably
have
ensued, hindering government efforts to tackle the economy.
"I
believe the government did not want to put country at risk
of sustained
political conflict during the lead-up to a
referendum as this would cause the
government's popularity
to decline and the draft charter would likely lose the
people's
support,'' Mr Paiboon said. He also said the new charter
drafting
committee must study the the rejected draft charter
to avoid any issues that
would spark controversy so
improvements can be made. "The new charter
drafting
committee may not take up the crisis panel proposal, but
they have to come
up with measures to ensure the stability
of future governments,'' Mr Paiboon
said.
News ,Politics,Bangkok Post, 7 September 2015.
From the point of crisis panel that seem
undemocratic
which lead to the rejection of the draft charter.
The objective of crisis panel is to avoid the
cycle of election
and
coup which is the problem of democracy in Thailand.
In my viewpoint it is a good point because I
think we exactly
can not advoid the coup .
The problem of the crisis panel is the
committee that appoint
to must scarify themselves to do for the benefit
of the country
and not intervene with the ordinary government affair
when
it is not in crisis.
Sincerely Yours.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น