No magic wand for Thailand

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