• 
• 

Published on August 10, 2007

It may sound ironic, but supporters and drafters of the junta-sponsored draft constitution say it offers more rights to Thai citizens than any previous constitution.

This may be true, but there is a catch - all rights and liberties recognised under the draft charter, ranging from the right to assembly, right to access to information and more, are all subject to exception.

Besides, if the controversial Internal Security Bill is passed, these rights will be rendered "meaningless", said charter drafter Angkhana Neelaphaijit.

Angkhana said she would wait until August 19, the day of the referendum, and if by then the chances of the bill becoming law are high, then she would reject the charter herself.

She is not alone in this belief. People like former senator Jon Ungpakorn believe that the bill, if passed, will grossly nullify the rights and liberty of citizens.

However, Choochai Supawongse, a deputy chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, is proud of the chapter on rights and liberty and appears to be more optimistic.

"The Constitution is the highest law... If the Internal Security Bill is passed, then the Constitution Court must consider [if the law is constitutional or not]," he said, adding that the junta-appointed National Legislative Assembly should set up a public-hearing committee to consider the bill very carefully.

However, the Surayud Chulanont government has been adamant so far. Surayud himself was quoted as saying that he sees such a law as necessary.

But the devil remains in the details.

Article 45 of the draft charter guarantees the right to freedom of expression unless otherwise stated by law or curtailed "to protect the security of the state".

The same condition applies to Article 56 of the draft charter, leaving room for possible denial of citizens' access to information and news in order to protect the security of the state.

The right for freedom of assembly under Article 63 is also subject to possible denial under a state of emergency or martial law. Search and detention without court warrant is also unconstitutional, except when allowed by some laws to "protect internal security of the state", Article 36 states. Labour conscription by the state is also unconstitutional, except under the state of emergency and martial law.

Since all these "rights" come with conditions, one can't help but be suspicious of the real intent of those behind the charter. But there are things not directly related to internal security issues that can be considered an improvement under this draft charter.

Though the death penalty hasn't been abolished, the term itself has been banished from the draft charter, an improvement compared to the 1997 constitution. It's a halfway compromise, a possible first step towards a future campaign to end capital punishment.

Also, for the first time, Article 30 guarantees equality and outlaws discrimination against the disabled.

Article 61 requires that the state support, help set up and fund an independent consumer protection organisation - another first.

The community rights recognised under Article 66 is another first, though some critics say the wording may be too vague to result in concrete exercising of community rights. It is nevertheless stated under Article 67 that a public hearing must be staged with people involved - including environmental and health experts, as well as NGOs - giving their views before any projects deemed to affect communities are given the go ahead.

Destitute elderly and the infirm will also be given the right to state support. Jon said much of the credit for the charter's positive points should go to civic sectors who lobbied hard during the drafting process.

Basic state-provided education is still maintained at 12 years like the 1997 charter, even though various camps attempted to either decrease or increase the number of years.

In the end, weighing the pros and cons of the draft charter's chapter on rights and freedoms is no easy task and depends on what an individual values most, and especially on whether the Internal Security Bill, if passed, will render the chapter pretty much redundant or not.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation