Parents will be able to choose if they wish to begin their children's free education at kindergarten level or at primary school, but it will not be provided beyond 12 years.

The assembly also endorsed rights to equal education opportunities for handicapped people, the permanently infirm and those in difficult situations.

Failed attempts have been made by half a dozen groups within the CDA and the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) to cut free education to no less than nine years. Others wanted to increase it to no less than 15 years and extend it to guarantee free university education.

Those supporting a cut in the minimum state-provided education were led by charter drafter and CDA member Sriracha Charoenpanich, who said the state doesn't have the money or capability to provide 12 years of free education for all.

Sriracha said on Wednesday night, when the debate on Article 48 first began, that since the 1997 charter was introduced, the overall quality of education had suffered greatly.

Sriracha urged his peers not to retain the 12-year entitlement to free education if it was "just to please the public".

Others said the draft might not survive the upcoming referendum if the minimum of 12 years' free education was not maintained. They said the period should be extended to no less than 15 years.

"If we want the country to move ahead and if we want democracy to progress, education is the most important key. Why can't the state invest more in it?" CDA member Withaya Bariboon said.

Supporters of free education being extended to no less than 15 years said that currently only 5.8 million Thais, or 11.6 per cent of the country's 61 million people, hold a bachelor's degree, while 17 million Thais have not even completed primary school.

They argue that money is not the issue, but how the budget is allocated to different ministries.

Forty members voted for the retention of 12 years' free education while only 32 members voted to extend it to 15.

An attempt to include a paragraph in the charter to allow parents with higher incomes to arrange special educational programmes with state-run schools was opposed, as many assembly members feared it would be abused by some schools - as a pretext to charge more for basic education.

In paragraph three of Article 48, the assembly also voted for the retention of a draft stipulation that "alternative education", and other forms, receive state protection and support.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation