After observing the opening arguments of why certain articles in the Thai Constitution should be changed, it quickly became obvious that the logic used matched that of smokers legitimizing smoking. The changes proposed lacked a certain element, and that is the changes would somehow benefit the Thai people.
The initial criteria of changing any Constitution of any country is that the change will somehow help the people of the country. To make their lives better in some way by removing some restrictions or by offering better guidance. The suggested changes in fact are nearly opposite.
There is little doubt the 2007 Thai Constitution was written with the intent of keeping corrupt politicians in check. Politicians lacked the will and desire to stop lining their pockets with the peoples money that was meant for improvements. That ultimately would mean more money would get down to the people.
When the Thaksin government was in power, the amount of money that was skimmed by corrupt politicians changed from sips to gulps. Laws that were in the way were changed on the fly in a matter of minutes without debate. Very simply a vote was called at all were told how Thaksin wanted the vote to go. Even the 1997 Constitution was slated for Thaksin’s chopping block less anyone forget.
It is because of that level of corruption and greed, the 2007 Constitution was worded that makes that level of corruption impossible without getting mortally wounded. The suggested changes look to remove those checks. They also want to remove the provisions that encourage self policing by dissolving a political party should a member of high enough status get busted.
So the smokers arguments and logic says ‘Because the Constitution was written after a coup’, but neglect to cite any valid reasons why that should matter. Every argument failed the test of genuine logic. They also seem to forget that the Constitution was ratified by the people in a national vote. Although it was an all or nothing vote, the win was by significant margins thus supporting collective wisdom of the Thai people. That translated into needing the new Constitution as a tool to deal with out of control politicians.
A weak psychological game is attempting to be played out in that somehow suggest the changes in the Constitution will bring about an end to the unrest. However that is not the case when put to the test of logic and observations. The only way to end the unrest is take Thaksin out. When there is a lull in Thaksin’s activities, a sense of normalcy quickly returns often in just a few weeks, thus supporting that change of the Constitution is not needed. That also supports that Thaksin is the problem and not the Constitution.
This is also supported by the accepted need to surround Thaksin supporters with military and police to keep them from trying to burn down Thailand again. This has been the conclusion of Thais as well as other governments and tourist related business. The phrase Internal security laws AKA State of emergency that once sent tourists running home and governments imposing travel warnings, is now seen in the opposite light and openly welcome when it comes to dealing with Thaksin.
Because the suggested reasons for changing the Constitution have already been proven to be a fallacy by events and observation that have happened in 2009 alone, the pro change arguments are already defeated by proof and not speculation.