From a Thai Rath opinion piece translated by the Bangkok Post:
The government must come up with a clear explanation as to why amendments are needed. And once a new draft charter is finalised, it should be compared with the current Constitution so the public can see the pros and cons of the changes.
And to be fair to everyone, a referendum should be held on the draft constitution. Critics may ask: Why waste another two billion baht to organise a referendum?
The same question was asked last year, when a referendum was held on the current Constitution. But why argue about the cost of a referendum? If it helps end the current crisis, it is completely worthwhile.
BP: If there was a referendum and a majority voted to approve the amendment, would it actually change anything? Would opponents of the government deem a referendum victory as legitimate? They never saw past electoral victories as legitimate and don't deem the plans of the elected Parliament to amend the Constitution as legitimate so I don't see how they would suddenly respect the majority now. This is why I think it is a waste of money as it would achieve nothing.
btw, I think that one of the provisions that should be amended is Section 291 to require a referendum to amend provisions of the Constitution.
The referendum could be fun if the government applied the same approach as the NSC-government did: Claim all the space for propaganda for itself and systematically silence all opponents! And then claim legitimacy if the new constitution is passed...
anon2 - \"systematically silenced all opponents!\" if that were true proxy Samak and proxy PPP would not have been allowed to even spit on the streets without consequences. But proxy Samak and proxy PPP are thriving . . . up to a point of course.
A referendum makes a lot of sense . . . unless of course the proxies are feeling cornered (from their past transgressions rapidly catching up with them, despite their election victories) and feeling running of time.
The first anonymous probably should have omitted the word "all", which would have made it accurate.
Any referendum on a constitution is tricky, as we have seen in both Thai and EU cases. My first instinct is to think that a referendum would better be organized with votes on individual changes, not one big all or nothing like the junta version.
In the current case, it does seem that a trustworthy public process is essential to ensure that amending the charter is also a process of healing rifts and working through solutions. It seems that the 1997 version provided the ideal roadmap for this.
Perhaps the government should:
1) repeat 1997 process.
2) Hold referendum on final product
3) Agree to resign if it fails
The final clause would help to ensure that the create something that is not controversial, don’t resort to extortion (like the junta did), and have a real incentive to create something popular.
Anon2, you can hardly deny that the NSC-junta gov't was fair.
One must also wonder when the junta's transgressions will catch up with them. No wonder they don't want anybody repealing their beloved sections.