Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday proposed a national referendum on amending the Constitution, in a concession to critics demanding a revision to the People’s Charter as well as his resignation.

But law academics warned that rewriting the Constitution was not the complete answer.

“I welcome the call for constitutional changes, but I have to ask for the public’s approval. If they agree, then I will go ahead,” Thaksin said.

The question could be put to the people during the April 19 Senate election, he said.

If the people favoured a review, discussions would start on what parts of the Constitution needed to be improved, he said.

Any decision on reforms – which could change the way political parties operate and make it easier to censure or dismiss a government – should be decided by the whole country and not by pressure groups, he said.

“It will be the first referendum ever in the nine years since the 1997 Constitution was implemented,” government Spokesman Surapong Suebwonglee said.

“It’s not a delaying tactic as claimed by the opposition party. But we aren’t sure what the majority of people think about the amendment proposal,” he said. A referendum would not add substantial cost to the Senate poll, just one more card with the question, he said.

Anti-Thaksin movement leader Sondhi Limthongkul said it was a joke to see Thaksin making a U-turn on the issue.

“Thaksin had insisted he would never allow the constitution amendment,” he said. “But he gives the green light today only when he is put into a corner.”

“It could help solve only half of the current problem; the rest is the interpretation process of implementing it,” Thammasat University’s deputy rector Parinya Thewanaruemitkul said. A sore point is the stiff requirement of at least two-fifths of MPs to move for a censure debate. This should be relaxed to one-fifth, he said.

Fussing with the supreme law of the land would not help bring an end to the crisis at all, said Thianchai Wongchaisuwan, an independent academic and social critic.

“The root of the problem is the new capitalism which intervenes in state power efficiently for its own benefit. You cannot close all loopholes to prevent this intervention. And society cannot cope with this concentrated new capitalism,” Thianchai said.

Both of them agreed that empowering communities was imperative. Parinya supported strengthening the grassroots through an amendment.

Thianchai advocated other ways including taking to the streets, saying: “We need more people like Sondhi to make our people able to cope with the new capitalism.”

Pennapa Hongthong,

Yossawadee Hongthong

The Nation