As parliament prepares to debate three constitutional amendment bills today and tomorrow, senators remain divided over the timing, necessity and potential impact on political stability.
Pol Gen Sawat Tasana questioned whether constitutional amendments would genuinely benefit the public.
“Before deciding whether the timing is right, we should ask: which parts of the constitution harm the people or cause hardship? If amendments directly improve citizens’ lives, then perhaps people would support them,” he told the Bangkok Post.
He argued the government should prioritise urgent national concerns over constitutional revision.
“We face border issues with neighbouring countries, including Cambodia and the southern provinces, as well as challenges in the West. These demand immediate attention more than constitutional debates,” he added.
Pol Gen Sawat said while many politicians claim amendments would serve the public, in practice, changes often protect political interests.
“Let’s be honest — most amendments in the past have been about easing ethics regulations, simplifying referenda or introducing amnesty provisions. Do these help the public or politicians?” he asked.
Another senator, Alongkot Worakee, said he was unable to take a position on the proposals until he saw their full content.
“The House of Representatives is proposing party, while the Senate can only vote for or against — not amend the text,” he said.
“It’s like being presented with a meal; senators can’t change the ingredients, only decide whether to eat it.”
However, Mr Alongkot likewise raised doubt about the necessity of constitutional change.
“This is not a public demand but a political promise. If we make it too easy to amend the constitution, it will lose stability. Look abroad — do other countries revise their constitutions so often?” he asked.
The real problem lies not in the 2017 constitution itself, but in the excessive concentration of financial power within government.
“Soft Power funds and special agency budgets total more than three trillion baht. Reforming budget management would be more beneficial than rewriting the constitution,” he said.
Mr Alongkot also dismissed claims of “blue faction” influence within the Senate. The so-called “blue faction” refers to a group of senators perceived to be closely aligned with the Bhumjaithai Party, which uses blue as its identifying colour.
“When over 170 senators vote for a bill, are they all blue? It’s more about individual judgement than colour,” he said, predicting that the joint session today might devolve into political point-scoring rather than substantive discussion.
Pol Col Kob Atjanakitti echoed concerns over the timing, saying political and security issues should take precedence.
“The problem isn’t the constitution — it’s people who don’t follow it. Some just want to bend the rules for personal convenience,” the senator said.
He argued constitutional change would only deepen political divisions.
“There are many urgent problems that deserve the government’s full attention. Amending the constitution now will only heighten conflict,” he warned.
He also dismissed allegations of Senate factionalism. “There are no colours in the Senate — the only colour that matters is the colour of the nation,” he said.
However, not all senators shared the same reservations.
Pisit Apiwattanapong, spokesman for the Senate Whip Committee, took a more open stance, saying all three drafts had both strengths and weaknesses.
“None of the drafts is perfect, but each has merits worth considering. I personally support accepting all three in principle for the first reading.
“Once in the second reading, we can deliberate on which sections to merge or revise. That’s how legislation should proceed.”
He said that only one-third of Senate votes — about 67 members — are needed for the bills to pass the first reading.
“Given that threshold, I believe the first reading is likely to pass,” he added.