• 
• 

Published on August 20, 2007

I woke up early yesterday morning, excited by the opportunity to cast my vote in Thailand's first-ever referendum.

Normally, I reserve my Sunday mornings to do the household errands after the long weekdays, but I knew that I would never miss the chance to cast my ballot on the draft constitution.

I have to admit that I didn't read through the draft chapter by chapter, but I certainly support it because I have learned that it will allow people to have more opportunity to take part in the decision-making process. People can raise issues with the government.

Some of my work colleagues said they would vote down the charter because they did not want to justify the military government.

I consider myself a democratic advocate. I won't comment on the military intervention here, but I decided to vote for the charter because it contained what I wanted.

Although I am a Bangkok resident now, I originally come from Nakhon Sawan. And I know how communities are frequently left out of decisions that can have a big impact on their lives. Recently, Nakhon Sawan people have had to fight hard to oppose the planned construction of a power plant because it would certainly damage their rice farms. The new charter should provide people with an opportunity to voice their concerns on issues in a systematic way.

After I watched the morning news yesterday, I decided to leave my apartment to cast my vote. I went to the booth in Ramkhamhaeng University's Bang Na campus at around 2pm. Not many people were around. I guess most of the students are from the provinces and, unlike me, they have yet to transfer their house registration to Bangkok.

I went to the booth with determination, even though I was originally confused over the mark. A TV advert showed a cross inside a bracket. Days before, I was not sure if I had to mark both the cross mark and the bracket. However, I figured later that the cross sign should be enough.

Officials gave me the paper, which showed two blank boxes. I don't have to repeat which one I crossed. But the problem was that I wrote too hard and almost made a big hole in the ballot paper.

I tried to fold it back nicely before slipping it into a box in front of the officers. I was worried that my ballot might be declared a damaged one. The Election Com-mission should make sure that the surfaces of all tables inside booths are as smooth as silk; the table I used was very old.

I left the booth a few minutes later, satisfied I had fulfilled my duty. Public bus No 207 came by and the conductor yelled out: "Today half-price, only Bt4." He urged me to get on the bus. "You will have to wait a long time for another bus. Today, you pay half-price but the number of public buses is also cut by half."

But I didn't want to take a bus without air conditioning. It was a hot day. So I waited for air-con bus No 171. As I expected, I had to wait for half an hour because only 12 public buses were being served yesterday, instead of the usual 30. But at least the ticket was a half-price Bt6.

Chanetsada Saengjang

--------------------------------------------

'No' to a document of dubious origins

The referendum rendered the exact feeling of the last episode of an action-packed TV series that could be exciting yet mundane.

Most Thais who cast their ballots yesterday hoped that this round of voting would bring an end to political instability. But I wanted to make a statement with my "no" vote.

First of all, I said no to this charter due to the origin of its drafting assembly, which was established under the supervision of the Council for National Security (CNS). This assembly represented the elite, not all social groups as in the drafting of the 1997 Constitution.

I admired the assembly's attempt to raise the people's voice by allowing them for the first time to file petitions directly to the Constitution Court. I liked the clauses that require the government to report to Parliament details of the central budget as well as all off-balance sheet budgets.

But what bothered me was the clause that provides amnesty to the CNS for past and future actions.

What bothered me also was people saying that we needed to vote for this Constitution if we didn't want ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra to regain power. A constitution is supposed to be enduring, not written for a short-term objective. And Thaksin will not be able to return, even via a nominee, if the Assets Examination Committee can prove that he abused his prime ministerial powers.

Given the chaos of the past months, I can't accept the claim that political stability will return once an election takes place under this constitution. Since the origin of this constitution is questionable, the protests will not stop.

People have said the 1997 Constitution paved the way for power abuse in the past five years. Like any law, that charter contained flaws, but they could have been addressed without spending Bt150 million for a drafting assembly to come up with a new one.

Like its predecessors, the 2007 Constitution cannot be flawless. It will not address the problems in Thailand at their root. It cannot lead to full democracy when not all Thais realise their duties and rights.

They are told to uphold the national interest but, so far, personal interest comes first, probably because of the huge inequality in society. Most people still do not see how this trait will backfire.

Indeed, if Thaksin had stayed on, people would have learnt. With the debts from many projects financed by off-balance sheet budgets ballooning, his government would one day have been forced to admit it had no more money.

But Thaksin was kicked out of the scene prematurely. Now he has the excuse that he could not deliver on his promises due to unnatural forces.

I resent that whenever politicians' wrongdoings are exposed, it's not the people who throw them out of office but the military brass.

The series has come to an end and now we must wait to see how the producers entertain us next. Like any series, over-expectation always kills the joy.

Achara Deboonmee