The "missing link" that he deliberately avoided posing was: Can a non-MP become the next prime minister?

To the surprise of many observers, coup leader General Sonthi suddenly became a constitution "expert" when he spoke to a seminar on "The Future of Thailand" last week. Even if you suspected that some academics in the inner circle might have written that speech for him, when he listed some of the key political questions that will come up for hot debate when the 100-strong Constitution Drafting Committee is screened from the 200 picked on Tuesday by the 1,982-member National People's Assembly, Sonthi sounded as if he had actually done his homework on what went wrong under Thaksin Shinawatra's five-year autocratic rule.

He talked about some obvious issues that will be raised in the next few months with the revision of the 1997 Constitution that was tossed out in the wake of the September 19 putsch. They represent all the political "nightmares" left by the Thaksin regime, such as:

Should the prime minister be limited to a maximum of two terms?

Shouldn't the government's status be terminated once the House is dissolved by the premier - and let permanent secretaries be empowered to run the country during an election period instead?

For the sake of more effective checks and balances, shouldn't the PM be subject to a no-confidence censure on the strength of only 100 opposition MPs' signatures instead of the current 200?

Based on the painful experience of the Thaksin era, should the Senate still be entirely elected?

And to prevent another "Thaksin" from exerting absolute control over the political landscape, shouldn't the 90-day lock on MPs switching parties be removed?

I am not sure that Sonthi, by publicly proposing this set of "guidelines" for constitutional changes, won't complicate the debate. It's not the gist of his suggested changes to the rules of the game that's the problem. It's the "sensitivity" of the 100-member Constitution Drafting Council - supposed to be independent of any political pressure - being seen to be "guided" by the coup leader that's probably the mother of all issues in this process. But political posturing aside, it's fair to argue that the 1997 constitution drafters had wanted an effective executive branch with a strong prime minister in the name of stability. This followed years of parliamentary turbulence because of dubious political horse-trading and self-seeking manoeuvring. To all intents and purposes, the 2007 charter should envision a system whereby an "enlightened prime minister" can work comfortably within the constitutional limits of a proper set-up of checks and balances.

Thaksin gave democracy a bad name. His populist rule convinced cynics that democracy is just a tyranny of the majority because he exploited his staggering majority in the House to stamp out dissident views against his corruption-infested government in general and his own style of autocratic rule.

One of the main flaws of the 1997 constitution, despite it being labelled one of the most democratic, was the "protectionist" clause that made it impossible to move a no-confidence motion against the premier all through Thaksin's controversial five-year reign - despite his constant, blatant breach of public faith over a series of conflict-of-interest scandals. The 1997 charter required at least two-fifths of House of Representatives members (no fewer than 200 out of 500 MPs) to submit a censure motion against the chief of the executive branch. It is more than likely that the 2007 constitution will tear that wall down so the next government will come under closer scrutiny and impeachment of a corrupt prime minister isn't simply an academic possibility but a real alternative to make all unconstitutional options untenable.

But Sonthi failed to mention the hottest controversy in political circles even before the constitution drafting committee was voted in: whether an "outsider" could be made next prime minister. Outsiders in this context include anyone who doesn't seek public office through an election.

Allowing a non-MP to become head of the executive branch has always been a contentious issue because it inevitably conjures up the scenario of a military officer, having effected a military takeover, playing the democratic game by having a new constitution in place that will stage a democratic farce of an election. This would eventually make the coup leader, who doesn't have to go through an electoral test, a legitimate prime minister.

It doesn't help that Sonthi and his coup mates have repeatedly pledged to leave the political stage once the new constitution is in place. There will always be the lingering doubt that once you have tasted power, the temptation to stay on in one form or another will belie all of a coup leader's promises, no matter how convincing they sound and how often they are repeated. That probably explains why Sonthi, in his famous speech last week about how the new constitution should change the face of Thailand's future, deliberately avoided the other most sensitive flaw in the 1997 constitution, or another charter for that matter: How can the 2007 Constitution prevent another coup?

Unless he comes up with a convincing answer, Sonthi's pledge that the September 19 putsch is "the last coup" will be just another empty promise. But then, have you really heard him make that commitment?

Suthichai Yoon