LESS THAN two months after the 20th Constitution was promulgated, coup-installed committees started to debate mechanisms to allow future amendments or revisions of the new charter “because it might not fit with situations in the next 10 years”.

The National Reform Steering Assembly will discuss on Monday whether to endorse political reform proposals to include in the national strategy, which suggest the Consti-tution should be revised to ensure it serves changing circumstances.

Seri Suwanpanont, chairman of NRSA’s political reform committee, said yesterday that the committee proposed the amendment because “in the past, around 10 years after the promulgation, there have always been problems”.

“It has been said every time that the Constitution is the dead end,” Seri pointed out. “I believed the revision can be an approach to resolve constitutional issues and prevent deadlocks as happened in the past.”

The committee debated whether the charter should be subject to amendments every 10 years, or to amendments within the first 10 years. The committee decided on the latter and put this among its proposals.

If endorsed by the NRSA this Monday, the proposals would be forwarded to the Cabinet and the super-committee that is supervising reform, reconciliation, and national strategy, as well as the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), he said.

Meanwhile, Meechai Ruchupan, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC), admitted that the revision might be necessary although he did not completely agree that 10-years was the right timetable.

“It might take a while. It cannot be told when exactly [the charter] should be revisited,” he said. “If it needs amendment, then so be it.”

“If it turned out people’s way of thinking has changed and the Constitution is no longer suitable, then [revision] is necessary,” the veteran charter crafter said.

However, to set the rigid time frame of 10 years might be tricky, he said. There was no legitimate logic backing it, he said.

Meechai said the constitution of the United States had been promulgated for more than a century and it had not been revisited once. Meanwhile, there were cases in other countries where a couple of amendments were made a few years after adoption.

He noted the Constitution had been designed to make amendments inconvenient. He wanted to see whether it could yield the desired result after some time in use, he said. If it met with intentions, then it should not need to be amended, he said.

Though the person was his baby, Meechai said he had no problems if his baby was refashioned. However, he wanted it to be natural and if there were no causes, it should not be altered, he said.