No magic wand for Thailand

Thailand has won a battle in averting a showdown over the draft constitution on which parliament will vote on Sept. 27; it has yet to win the war for the clean and open government that the proposed charter is expected to usher in. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh's six-party coalition faces a censure motion that will be debated a few days before the charter vote. But the charter is important, not because it will necessarily achieve everything it promises, but because it seems to have become even more the focal point of public expectation since Chavalit was accused of trying to scuttle it. The "people's charter", as it has been called, is expected to solve all the problems of Thailand's troubled public life.

It is not very realistic to pin such high hopes on what is, after all, only a prescription. No magic wand can possibly wish away overnight the deep-seated social, political and economic problems that have led to 17 military interventions and 15 constitutional revisions during the 65 years that Thailand has been a constitutional monarchy. In particular, it might be stretching a point to blame the political system for the recent crisis when the baht had to be bailed out with a US$17.2 billion international package, or to believe that any constitution can insulate a currency from poor economic management.

Obviously, though, former Prime Minister Anand Panyarchun and the 99 experts who spent nearly eight months on the charter are convinced that the quality of political life will not improve unless professional executives and technocrats are also MPs, and that specialists will have no truck with the hurly-burly of the hustings. If the draft is accepted, they will ride piggyback into parliament on the political parties for which the electorate votes, and account for one-fifth of the total strength. A whole raft of other stipulations is intended to make government, all the way up from provincial administrative bodies to the cabinet, more effective and transparent, as well as less susceptible to money power. Not all the clauses are equally commendable, however. Many would dispute the need for MPs to hold at least a bachelor's degree. Many would also question the wisdom of MPs having to resign their seats when they become members of the cabinet, since this would appear to exempt them from constituency responsibilities.

-- The Straits Times