What so new about the new Constitution?
Dr Kriengsak Chareonwongsak
Senior Fellow, Harvard Universityrsquo;s Center for Business and Government
The first referendum in Thai political history will soon take place. Before this, the public should carefully consider the substance of the draft constitution before accepting or rejecting it. As an economist, I have compared the 1997 Constitution with the 2007 draft to provide the public with better information for this vote.
Conceptually, Constitutions 1997 and 2007 both remain unchanged, emphasizing the liberal market economy, market mechanisms, and state responsibility for public welfare.
Such thinking reflects lsquo;social liberalism,rsquo; namely equal economic opportunities for all, free, minimally controlled State market mechanisms, the prevention of market monopoly, establishment of oversight bodies, and minimum wage setting. The State also takes responsibility for education, public healthcare, and other public services equally provided through the national tax base.
Similarities do show. Economic measures in 1997 remain intact in 2007, being regulatory check-and-balance mechanisms for a liberal economy, the promotion of equitable income distribution, state subsidies provision for education and healthcare, and the decentralization of fiscal authorities for local administrations.
The additions are mostly minor, for example stipulating income distribution methods by protecting and expanding career opportunities, and providing the poor and disabled with educational subsidy access.
The new Constitution has three major new additions:
The first is a treaty for change in Thailandrsquo;s territories or State jurisdiction. This would impact economic or social security, and result in trade, investment, or budgetary commitments. This must be approved by the National Assembly and be open to public participation. Organic compensation policy laws have been added for those adversely affected by such agreements.
Another addition clarifies budgetary procedure rules. A national budget bill proposes that detailed state revenue and fiscal status information be included from the previous year. Fiscal and monetary laws must also serve as a framework for public expenditure, demanding explanation to the National Assembly on non-budgetary revenues.
The last addition, state enterprise reform, stipulates basic infrastructure provision by the State, which is not monopolized by the private sector, having basic state-owned infrastructure networks unable to exceed 51 per cent of human life necessities or national security.
For economics, I believe the 2007 draft charter attempts to correct the previous Constitutionrsquo;s loopholes that led to economic problems under the past administration, such as free trade agreement negotiation, state enterprise reforms, lack of transparency in public finance and budgetary procedures, income distribution and educational subsidies.
I agree with the additions, particularly legislative clauses supervising the process of entering into international treaties andrequiring better transparency and oversight for national budgetary procedures. The added bar to private sector basic infrastructure monopoly is also positive.
Nevertheless, other issues should be incorporated into the new charter, for example, more transparent contract-making between the public and private sectors, plus more efficient consumer protection, scrutiny and compensation.
Inadequate national budget for public welfare is another missing issue. Free compulsory education is good in principle, but has serious budgetary implications. To me, people who can afford education should contribute to its provision. The tax base must be expanded to alleviate state welfare budgeting. More importantly, the Constitution must be taken seriously and its charter principles concretized.
เผยแพร่:
Living in Thailand
เมื่อ:
2007-09-01