Nidhi: Please, don't applaud while I speak please because we aren't here to fight to win over the other side. We are here to present our thoughts and let the people decide.

 The 1997 constitution had many good points...not perfect...but the charter drafters had a clear vision of some major issues in raising the standards of politics...preventing money from influencing politics...

If we want to have a better constitution, we can't forget the bad influence of capital.

Before the Sept 19 coup, all sides accepted the drawbacks of the 1997 constitution. Even Thaksin had said he was ready to set up a committee to review it...whether he was being sincere or was pressured into it was something else.

If there had been no coup, the drafting of a new constitution could be more democratic and could have invited a wider degree of participation from the public.

Besides, the charter drafters have not been able to make use of the real experiences from 10 years under the 1997 constitution from all segments of society. The drafting committee has listened mostly to the opinions of the middle-class in the cities but not from the grass-rootes in the rural areas.

I beleive that the constitution drafting committee has set too narrow a set of agenda. They did not consider the three main concerns that I have: Infringement on individual rights, implications of globalization and the negative influence of bad capital.

I foresee the formation of  a weak government with many parties in a coalition after the next election if we accept the new draft. The new electoral method (three MPs to one constituency instead of one each) will weaken the representation system.

Politicking will rear its ugly head once again if the new constitution draft if adopted. Political parties will divide up their political spoils. Cabinet members will be farmed out on a quota system. If that's the case, who's going to govern the government? My answer is: The bureaucracy will be in control of the government. Worse, the new draft gives excessive power of selecting independent agencies to the judiciary branch. That will be problematic...The 1997 constitution had the same problem.

As a result, the judiciary will be lured into the trap of the bureacratic system's benefits. Don't forget that Thai bureaucracy has never been known for honesty or  innovation.

Checks and balances against the government are most effective when they are done through social mechanisms. This draft offers rights and liberty to the people only on paper...reducing the number of required 50,000 to 10,000 signatures of the people to propose legislation. The problem is they have no access to mass media to address their issues. The charter writers may have good intention but they aren't realistic.

People's rights are still lacking in terms of demanding the right to have access such as environment impact studies required of all major projects undertaken by state enterprises.

The new draft contains no "recall" rights of the people against their MPs. To my mind, if the number of people is high enough, the voters should have the direct right to recall their MPs...they shouldn't have to go through  a committee to exercise that vital right.

I think we should begin by trying to look for legitimacy in politics that's acceptable to all sides. I don't think politics will be stabilized if this draft is accepted.

We should reject the constitution so that the coup leaders and government should revert to the 1997 constitution.