• 
• 
• 

Having returned from his international comfort zone to the less flattering realities of "buses from hell", the police chief and a controversial Cambodian temple that can only be accessed from the Thai side, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva can be forgiven if he sees constitutional reform as the least of his concerns. This apparently explains his carefree announcement that we should have another public referendum on whether we should have a new charter.

We wish he would spare us the big headache and the trip back to Square One, but it seems too late. Thailand's charter has to be fixed, because it's like living-room furniture in the house of a constantly-fighting couple. During peace time, the furniture is there to represent love, warmth and mutual taste. When things turn sour, the nearest thing is picked up and hurled at one another. Then they try to fix the furniture again.

If the government has enough time and money, be my guest, because it won't be too long before something is broken again. After all, aren't we seeing an irony here - holding a popular vote to decide a common value?

Many may argue that without some kind of a popular survey, we can never know what the Thai majority wants as common principles that can put the country back on track and drive it forward. This argument seems valid until we take a closer look at the proposals they have come up with. Mostly we see technicalities, and little has to do with a common principle or ideology.

The proposals underline the way we have been treating our highest law. Thailand's constitutions, even including the much-praised 1997 one, are usually sets of technical measures that are there to be breached, sidestepped or outsmarted. Assets surveillance? Fine, let's move our wealth elsewhere. Checks and balances? Let's see what it can do with our men sitting in key positions.

It is all right to try to make the living-room furniture unbreakable, in the hope that once the violent couple calm down, there will be no serious damage and normalcy can return quickly. This assumption, however, ignores the fact that nothing is durable. We thought the 1997 charter was a great piece of furniture, only to end up fooling ourselves big time.

Both sides of the political divide still admire the 1997 Constitution. Problem is, nobody loved it unconditionally and they obeyed the principles only when it suited them. When Thaksin Shinawatra paid great tribute to the coup-abolished 1997 charter in his phone-in speeches, he omitted the painful fact that Thailand's problems began when he slipped through its safeguards, triggering a domino effect that continues today. He always said sarcastically that his opponents wanted nothing short of a charter that specifically prevented him from playing politics, but if he read the 1997 charter thoroughly, he would realise that such a constitution already once existed.

Yet the strong principles applied against Thaksin by his opponents have been used meekly the other way round. If he caused the divide, the double standard has made it deepen. If Part I of Thailand's political crisis saw him taunting the 1997 charter, Part II shows his opponents becoming their own worst enemies.

What is left for us to try now? What haven't we done that should have been done?

We may need new furniture after all that has happened. But it's not the final answer. The violent couple may calm down for a while to admire new decor, but can the new pieces remind them that they are in this together, so they must stick together? How long will it take before the household missiles start flying again?

It will be nine months of the same old debate, probably longer - especially if the referendum idea materialises. Time and money will again be wasted, not least because the couple obviously needs counselling before buying new furniture. They need to be told, and to believe it, that when they go out and buy furnishings next time, they must represent their commitment to respect each other and live by common rules.

If that's such a hard promise to make, well, why try fixing the irreparable?