Thai media on charter change
Sat, 02/02/2013 - 08:57 | by prachatai
The Thai media has treated constitutional amendments as a politicking game and has de facto reflected a new series of battles between the post-coup Thaksin and non-Thaksin forces, according to the four-member Media Inside Out research team.
Ubonrat Siriyuvasak, head of the research team, said of two of the six print media that were surveyed -- Thai Post and ASTV Manager -- have bluntly made clear their opposition to amending the charter in their coverage and editorials, citing the move would only benefit the fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra.
The editorial stance of Thai Rath, Kom Chad Leuk (sister paper to The Nation), Matichon and the Bangkok Post seemed to question the charter amendment move but showed fair coverage, said Ms Ubonrat.
But most op-ed articles from non-staff writers in most newspapers, except Matichon, have clearly shown that they did not see the merits of amending the constitution, said Ms Ubonrat, adding that space for substantial debates was hardly seen in the Thai media.
The study, which covered the period from April to July 2012, looked at straight news reporting, editorial writing and commentaries. It concluded that papers opposing the amendment plan cited allegations that amendments to the constitution that was sponsored by the coup government would lead to the abolition of the institution of the monarchy and was nothing but a tactic to whitewash Thaksin’s crimes.
In a related seminar on this issue, Worachet Pakeerut, associate law professor at Thammasat University, said that Parliament has already lost its legislative power to the Constitutional Court.
The Court has now set a precedent with the interpretation that anyone could file a complaint at any time to the Court directly without having to go through the Office of the Attorney General, said Mr Worachet.
He said his blunt stance would be the same as that of Nidhi Eoseewong, which encouraged parliament to proceed with the pending third reading voting and if the bill did not pass, the government should dissolve parliament.
Let the people decide (with the election) whether the people needed the amendment or not, said Worachet.
Prinya Tewanarumitkul, Deputy Rector of Thammasat University, said the Constitutional Court ruling was clearly not legally binding but was perceived as political advice to all parties concerned.
Prinya, also an assistant law professor, said the charter deadlock was unnecessarily prolonged, and it was time to kick the ball, perhaps through a referendum.
Wirat Kalayasiri, Democrat Party MP, said his party did not oppose amendment if the majority of the people agreed with the move-- by referendum.
Peeraphan Phalusuk, Pheu Thai MP, said he also agreed with the referendum but how to count a majority of votes for the referendum and what type of questions would be prepared for the people remained an issue.
Mr Peeraphan, at one point, also conceded that the issue was a difficult and tricky one and at the end of the day there might not be any progress on the matter at all.
Print version
Send by email
Comments
The editorial stance of ...
The Bangkok Post stated in nearly every 'news' ... not Oped but 'news' ... story it carried concerning the amendment process that the Constitutional Court's 'advice' required a referendum before the military charter was amended or scrapped for a new constituion. This despite the fact that the Bangkok Post had itself previously carried a statement by the Court's spokesperson stating unequivocally that the so-called 'opinion' of the Court was the personal opinion of the people sitting as judges on the court and not the legal opinion, not the ruling of the Court itself.
That was the last straw for me. I no longer bother with the Bangkok Post. I have relegated the Bangkok Post to the same trash bin to which I relegated The Nation some three or four years ago ... the bin for used fishwrap.
There is no journalism and there are no journalists in Thailand. The place journalists and journalism would occupy, if they were here, is taken up by the echo chamber of the Bangkok 'elite'. If you want to understand what's really happening in Thailand you must look elsewhere. You will only be lead astray looking for news in all the usual, wrong, places..
Is there a site where
Is there a site where amendament are available in english?
I found a copy of the
I found a copy of the Nitirat's original outline of the new constitution nearly a year ago and squirreled it away.
Although it certainly is the case that the latest, 2006, crop of treasonous mutineers and the assassins of 2010 must be arraigned for their actions, I personally do not think such a specification belongs in a document as general as a constitution.
A constitution needs to concern itself with first principles, and must be kept short enough and be written clearly enough to be read, understood, and used by everyone one of its constituents.
According to PPT the Nitirat's rationale is given by A.Worachat...
... I think that instead the new constitution ought to include a more general Recall, Referendum, and Initiative clause, reserving all those powers to the people as sovereigns. Mike Gravel made such a proposal for amending the US constitution, although he did not specifically include recall and referenda as seems good to me.
Once you've joined the manifest struggle to write/amend a constitution, it hardly seems to make sense to settle for half-a-loaf, does it?
And why should not Thailand show the rest of the world how a sound, 21st Century Constitution ought to look?
Thanks John Francis Lee. This
Thanks John Francis Lee. This is the Nitirat proposal. Is there available even in comments what has been discussed in parliament? From this article of Khun Achara it seems there was real little talking and i presume nothing written has appeared on media. Am i wrong?
Pino
If you have been following
If you have been following the Bangkok Post, you've been reading all about the obstructionist political manuveurs undertaken by the so-called Democrat Party and little or nothing about reality.
The Phuea Thai Party campaigned on and was elected to replace the military's illegal 'substitution' for the Thai Constitution of 2540, and PM Yingluck made that part of her official government policy on 25 August 2011 ...
The ever-obstructionist PAD/Democrats took the 'case' to the Royal Thai Army's substitution court, all judges appointed on 20 September 2006, who had to admit that it was certainly within the powers of the government to amend or rewrite the substitution. But they 'personally opined' that perhaps a referendum might be undertaken beforehand to slow the process.
The people of Thailand replied that that referendum had already taken place, that they had absolutely and unequivocally rejected the Royal Thai Army's coup and its dregs - the Democrat Party dominated, coup-appointed government - at the polls when they voted-in Phuea Thai and its pledge to rewrite the Thai Constitution with an absolute landslide.
The Bangkok Post continues to fantisize itself as arbiter of reality, in its own hermetically sealed world perhaps. Even Achara writes ...
What actually remains to be done is for the Constitutional Drafting Authority to be elected and a new, democratic constitution drawn up for Thailand by the peoples' CDA andthereafter approved by the people in referendum.
That will not be covered in the Thai MSM.
John Francis Lee's feelings
John Francis Lee's feelings of outright disillusionment with, and contempt for, the integrity of the Thai mainstream media, in particular The Nation and The Bangkok Post, are, I would judge, very common and certainly mirror my own.
However, at risk of being laughed at as awfully naive, John, I have, after reading some op-ed pieces in the BP recently, a slight sense that even 'they' can't deny any longer the neon-lit injustices in Thai society and the 'systems and institutions' within it by which the entire country is being 'put through the mangle'.
Who can one read and expect truth ? And where can one read it? BP's Khun Voranai is a terrific writer but is as crafty as a cartload of monkeys. Pravit is a better bet but.....
One reporter I do read is the author of the article above. But Khun Achara, I wish you would, or could, reveal more of your own opinions, because I have a sense they really might be worth reading.
Yeah ... I went from skeptic
Yeah ... I went from skeptic to fanboy myself ... see In Thailand, Spectre of state violence just won’t go away as well. I'm happy to be able link to the Straits Times rather than to the Bangkok Post on that last ... it seems the Bangkok Past has locked itself away behind a paywall. Their journalistic judgement is surpassed only by their brilliant business sense. I'm happier, in fact, reading Khun Achara in the Straits Times than I am in having to sully myself with 'membership' at the Bangkok Post.
Of course none of us walks on water and Khun Achara is perhaps safeguarding her own personal freedom, when she 'acknowledges' the 'impossibility' of plumbing the depths of the 1976 or 2010 Royal Thai Army Massacres ...
More must be done than to 'expect state authorities' to do anything. How about 'force state authorities'? Let's not forget who is truly sovereign not only in Thailand, but all over this earth, whether acknowledged by 'the state authorities' or not.
I also note that the Mob at
I also note that the Mob at the Bangkok Post used to refer to Khun Achara as an assistant editor and that since her writing, well its content at any rate, has so much improved she is now termed a senior reporter.
Reporter outranks editor in my book. Reporters observe, research, analyse, clarify, and report their findings.
The job description for editor is : empty suit hewing to the party-line. Editors remove journalism whenever it breaks out and muddy the waters, as 'best' they can, rather than allow them to be clarified.
Achara seems now to have transcended that dead end, I hope, both for her sake and for all of our, her readers', sakes as well.
Having been imbedded with the
Having been imbedded with the local northeast Thai media, and some of the central, for some seven years in the past on a professional basis, I wish people would not blame the media per se. Almost all Thais are scared to death of deviation, of really pointing out Aesop's old truisms, and are loathe to not belong to "Thainess."
That a Thai, and of course, far worse a foreigner who cannot understand that false construct Thainess, dare to expose in the public the far-reaching hypocrisy plaguing the nation and its culture, why that would not be Thai.
Thai culture is caught up in itself in a swirling whirlpool of nastiness that drags down all else. The media are but a small pawn on the board of enforced mindless compliance.