The Ruam Thai Sang Chart Party reiterated its stance against abolishing the 2017 Constitution , They believe the government has alternative options besides completely discarding the document.

Today (Jan 22 ) 11:00 am at the Ruam Thai Sang Chart Party headquarters , Mr. Peerapan Saliratwiphak, the party leader and prime ministerial candidate, announced the party's position on constitutional amendments. He stated that they had discussed the matter after receiving numerous inquiries about the party's stance on a new constitution. Therefore, he took this opportunity to clarify the party's position to those who have repeatedly asked about the government's inquiry regarding a new constitution. 

The Ruam Thai Sang Chart Party affirms its opposition to a new constitution. The reason is that such a question lacks a clear framework for what type of new constitution would be created. Drafting a new constitution would imply tearing up the 2560 Constitution, when amending and revising existing constitutions is possible without completely discarding the old one. The 2560 Constitution itself is not inherently flawed. Of course, any constitutional law can have flaws. Some issues can be addressed, and while the party agrees with amending several articles of the constitution, we disagree with completely discarding and rewriting it. Discarding and rewriting in this way lacks a framework; asking open-ended questions is a blank slate. If the public, or even the United Nation Party, believes a new constitution is necessary, it means they agree with tearing up the constitution without any framework. Tearing up the entire document would mean removing Chapters 1 and 2 entirely. 

Furthermore, articles concerning the royal prerogatives of key national institutions within the constitution would be lost entirely. Therefore, there is no guarantee that drafting a new constitution will not have repercussions on these aspects. The government is trying to claim they are following the Constitutional Court's ruling, which stipulates asking questions section by section. I believe this is untrue, because the Constitutional Court itself stated that the first and second referendums can ask questions simultaneously; it didn't say they had to be separate. And even if the Constitutional Court said to ask questions in the first and second referendums, it didn't prohibit the government from informing the public about the framework for the amendments. Therefore, the government's claim that they are following the court's ruling is false.

I reiterate that this is a case of saying one thing and doing another. Let's clarify that amending the constitution and tearing it up are two different things. Beyond the aforementioned issues, there's another crucial aspect: those who have been wrongly accused and those who have lost their rights will face consequences. Or, if they were deprived of various rights under the conditions of the 2017 Constitution, when that constitution was abrogated, it means that the rights of these people were not lost or disqualified; they would all be restored. Even though we said the 2017 Constitution was an anti-corruption constitution, we tore it up. There is no guarantee against these questions. Therefore, after careful consideration, the Ruam Thai Sang Chart Party still maintains that we disagree with having a new constitution by tearing up the old one and asking such open-ended questions. This will have repercussions, and there is no guarantee that the new constitution will not be affected by the issues I have mentioned above. 

Meanwhile, Mr. Atthawit Suwannabhakdi, the second-ranked prime minister candidate of the Ruam Thai Sang Chart Party, stated that he would like to reiterate that this constitution can be amended, but it cannot be abrogated. Regarding the claims by many parties that they will protect Chapters 1 and 2, he clarified that His Majesty's royal powers are not limited to Chapter 2. Important royal powers that are linked to the legislative branch, such as the right to veto legislation, are also included. Once legislation is passed in parliament and presented to His Majesty, he has the power to block those laws. Even His Majesty's prerogative to appoint military officers in security matters is His Majesty's prerogative. The prerogative to appoint, in relation to civilians and directors-general, is also His Majesty's prerogative and is not included in Section 2. 

I want to make it clear: have the political parties speaking today fully read and understood what they are about to do? This is the difference between a constitution that can be amended and a constitution that cannot be torn up. Therefore, we affirm that we do not agree with tearing up the constitution, but we agree with creating a new one. I emphasize that the current government already has options. Whether it's proposing amendments section by section, they can do so. Or, if they choose to create a new one, they can do so, but not through a blank check like this. This method is highly inappropriate, and if the amendments are successfully approved after February 8th, widespread criticism of the state structure and institutional structure will arise. This is our concern. 

When asked about the approach to educating the public, Mr. Peerapan said that this is the party's opinion. We have no right to dictate the public's opinion, and we respect the public's opinion. The press conference today is a confirmation in response to the questions that have been constantly asked what is The Ruam Thai Sang Chart Party opinion? This is the opinion of The Ruam Thai Sang Chart Party.

Copywriter: Siam Associated Press (SAP) Editorial Department
Pictures: Some illustrations come from the Internet. If there is any infringement, please contact us to delete it.
Source of material: official media /online news