The idea is problematic because it stipulates that when the country finds itself in crisis a meeting should be called to come up with ways to resolve the dispute. Among those qualified to participate are the prime minister, opposition leader, speakers of both houses, presidents of the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court, and leaders of all independent organisations under the constitution.

Extensive debate took place on the proposed Article 67, and a compromise was struck by deleting one paragraph which would make the decision reached by such a meeting legally binding, thus leaving the conclusion of such an extraordinary meeting as carrying mere moral authority.

Proponents of the new idea said it would allow for a way out of political deadlock like the one that paralysed the Kingdom last year.

"It will be the first time that we will put it into the charter and [it] will help solve [a political] crisis," said drafter Vicha Mahakhun.

He and others said that this way, His Majesty the King would not have to be troubled in times of national crisis. France had a similar article in its constitution, Vicha pointed out.

Opponents warned of possible abuse by the designated group and demanded that the public be consulted about the idea before it is adopted.

"If we adopt it today, the chair-

man will have lots of questions to answer tomorrow," drafter Pakorn Preeyakorn said.

A suggestion was also made to add to the draft presented for the committee's consideration yesterday a clause to include the heads of the three military branches. Sodsri Satyatham suggested the military should be consulted in such a case.

"It would help reduce coups ... The [make-up] of Bangkok is that of the military, too," she said.

Drafting committee chairman Prasong Soonsiri said "the idea is interesting", but no decision to include military leaders on the list was made.

Some drafters like Praphan Naiyakowit remained unconvinced. "This article could subvert the whole constitution. Whether the charter [or regime] will be overthrown or not depends on the

people and such an article will not help prevent it. The article will only cause confusion."

One other major issue which was highly contentious and failed to win a consensus was about guaranteeing community rights under the new

charter.

Supporters of the idea said it

was vital and even the 1997 charter recognised it, though without adequate organic laws to support it.

Opponents claimed it could spell trouble for public mega-projects in the future.

"There must be something that will limit [community rights]. Otherwise it could be abused. A community may say 'no' to a government project for the public good," said drafter Supot Kaimook, a former diplomat.

He described the culture of ethnic minorities such as sea gypsies as "backward" and something that needs to be "eradicated".

"We should not preserve it," he told the meeting.

In the end, Prasong said the matter would be held over for the next round of deliberation.

One small addition to the equivalent of Article 58 of the 1997 constitution was made and it may endorse further restrictions on the mass media.

The old article stated that: "A person shall have the right to get access to

public information in possession of a state agency, state enterprise or local government organisation, unless the disclosure of such information shall affect the security of the State, public safety or interests of others persons which shall be protected as provided by law.

The phrase "or news" was added and part of the new draft article reads: "… unless the disclosure of such information or news shall affect the security of the State...".

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation