Constitutional history

Since the coup of 1932, Thailand has had 20 constitutions and charters[1] with a series of intervening military
coups. These constitutions followed the model of constitutional monarchy, generally with significant power
retained by the King. During the first several decades of Thai constitutionalism, various rival factions struggled
for power, often resorting to the use of force. New leaders following military coups often sought legitimization
and stability by writing new constitutions, thus promulgating a persistent cycle of (1) military coups usurping
power, (2) new leaders suspending constitutions, and then legitimating their power with new constitutions until
(3) a perceived crisis leading to another coup. Between 1932 and 1991, Thailand experienced ten military
coups.[2] Of those ten, eight resulted in the writing of a new constitution.[3]

On 23 February 1991, a military coup led by Generals Sunthorn and Suchinda Kraprayoon unseated the
government of General Chatchai (widely considered corrupt), elected in 1988.[4] Although elections were held
in March 1992, General Suchinda refused to cede power.[5] In response, 200,000 protesters (organized by
General Chamlong Srimuang and consisting of many middle-class Thais) gathered at the Democracy
Monument on 17 May 1992.[6] General Suchinda responded with violent military force. Between 17 and 20
May, 44 people were killed, 38 were missing, and more than 500 were injured.[7] This event was to be later
known as “Black May”. The violence ended after Generals Suchinda and Chamlong were both summoned by
the King for a royal reproach, General Suchinda resigned, and new elections were announced.[8] Those
elections were held on 13 September 1992.[9]

The 1997 Constitution

The events of 1992 precipitated calls for political reform that eventually led to the amendment of the 1991
Constitution to allow for a new constitution-building process and the creation of the 1997 Constitution.[10] In
February 1997, the National Assembly elected a Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) to draft a new
constitution for Thailand.[11] The 1997 CDA consisted of 99 members: 76 were representatives elected from
each of Thailand’s 76 provinces, and 23 were chosen from academics and other qualified persons.[12] The
CDA held several public hearings to gain input on the contents of the new constitution, and submitted a draft
to the parliament for approval in August 1997.[13] The draft constitution was promulgated on 11 October
1997.[14]

Termed the “People’s Constitution”, the 1997 Constitution received praise within Thailand and internationally
for the participative nature of its drafting, its support of human rights, and its advances in political reform. One
of the most significant changes made by the 1997 Constitution was the shift from representative democracy to
participatory democracy – achieved through an overhaul of the electoral system,[15] public participation in the
appointment of new independent commissions,[16] and the strengthening of the Election Commission (Secs.
136-148),[17] the Administrative Court (Secs. 276-280),[18] and the Ombudsman (Secs. 196-198).[19] Other
innovations included the separation of the executive and legislative branches (Chapter VI) and recognition of
human rights (Chapter III).

The 2006 Military Coup

A political crisis that spanned 2005 to 2006 eventually resulted in another coup and shift of political power.
Corruption charges against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in January 2006 sparked mass anti-Thaksin
demonstrations and violence between Thaksin’s supporters and his opponents. The situation led to an eventual
coup, led by General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, on 19 September 2006.[20] In the wake of the coup, the military
junta – the Council for Democratic Reform led by General Boonyaratglin – took power. The King announced
that he had revoked the 1997 Constitution and placed the junta in charge of the country. A military tribunal
banned Thaksin’s party – the Thai Rak Thai party (TRT) – and barred its leadership from participating in Thai
elections for the next five years.[21] On 1 October 2006, The Council for Democratic Reform, renamed the
Council for National Security (CNS), appointed a new Prime Minister and promulgated the 2006 Interim
Constitution.[22]

The 2006 Interim Constitution

The Interim Constitution was widely criticized by regional and international bodies for being undemocratic
and centralizing power with the military junta. While it mandated that the new constitution had to be approved
by referendum (Clause 29), it also provided that the constitution drafters would be appointed by the junta (the
CNS) (Clauses 23-26). Furthermore, in the event that the drafting process failed or the draft constitution was
rejected at referendum, the CNS was to gain considerable direct control over drafting the new constitution (Cl.
32). The CNS retained much of the power in the interim government through its various powers of
appointment, recommendation, and countersigning of royal actions (although the King was still deemed the
Head of State and the Thai Armed Forces (Cl. 1)). The King was charged with appointing the Prime Minister
along with a 35-member Council of Ministers, and the Prime Minister could only be appointed or removed by
the King with the consent of the chairman of the CNS (Cl. 14). The legislative branch, or National Legislative
Assembly, had to propose and review draft laws (Cl. 9), but with money bills being proposed by the Cabinet
(Cl. 10).[23] Its 250 members were also appointed by the King rather than elected (Cl. 5). The 2006 Interim
Constitution transferred all power previously held by the 1997 Constitution’s Constitutional Court to a
Constitution Judiciary Council consisting of nine members: the President of the Supreme Court; the President
of the Supreme Administrative Court; five judges from the Supreme Court selected by other members of the
Supreme Court by secret ballot; and two judges of the Administrative Court selected by other members of the
Administrative Court by secret ballot (Cl. 35).

The 2006 Interim Constitution established a new Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) to oversee the
drafting of the new constitution. The CDA consisted of 100 members selected by the CNS (Cl. 23) from a list
of 200 National Council members created by the National Council itself (Cl. 22) (the National Council
consisted of 2,000 members all appointed by the King (Cl. 20)). The 100 selected members were then formally
appointed by the King (Cl. 19). The Interim Constitution further established a Constitution Drafting
Committee directly tasked with drafting the constitution and consisting of 35 members: 25 appointed by the
CDA and 10 members selected by the President of the CNS (Cls. 25-26).

In April 2007, the Constitution Drafting Committee finalized its draft of the new constitution and submitted it
to the larger CDA.[24] The CDA then debated the draft, made amendments, and approved the amended draft
constitution on 6 July 2007.[25] The draft constitution was put to a referendum on 19 August 2007 and passed
by 57.81% with a turnout of 57.61% of eligible voters.[26]

The 2007 Constitution

The 2007 Constitution included some significant innovations. While it did not provide for a wholly elected
Senate, neither did it contain the earlier proposal creating a National Crisis Council that would have given the
military significant control over the administration of the government in times of national crisis.[27] The 2007
Constitution also allowed people to directly submit constitutional challenges to the Constitutional Court (Sec.
212), and gave more power to the courts by allowing high-ranking judges to be on various Selection
Committees which selected candidates for the Senate and independent agencies.

The King
The 2007 Constitution put in place a constitutional monarchy. The King remained the Chief of State but ceded
much of his direct power to the Prime Minister as the head of the government. The King remained nominally
the head of the Armed Forces (Sec. 10), and the protector of all religions in the country (Sec. 9). He also
retained some traditional powers such as the appointment of heirs (Sec. 22) and the power to grant pardons
(Sec. 191). The King could, if he so chose, appoint members to the 18-person Privy Council that assisted the
King directly (Sec. 12). These Councilors were removable only by the King, and they acted as his personal
advisors in all matters relating to the King’s duties.

Executive
The 2007 Constitution imposed many restrictions on the executive branch. For example, it declared that a
Prime Minister may only serve for eight years (Sec. 171) and required the Prime Minister’s family members to
declare all assets while forbidding them to be partners or shareholders in any companies (Sec. 269). Other
provisions, aimed at addressing corruption such as that alleged against the former Prime Minister Thaksin,
granted the public more power to submit laws (Sec. 163) [28] and seek transparency. For example, citizens
could directly petition the Senate to dismiss the Prime Minister and other officers (Sec. 164). Local
governments also faced new requirements of transparency and accountability. As in other parliamentary
systems, the Prime Minister was selected through an election in the House of Representatives, and so was
usually the head of the prevailing party in the national elections. The Prime Minister was then officially
appointed by the King to be head of the executive branch. The King, though, had the power to appoint another
35 Ministers to comprise the Council of Ministers (Sec. 171). This Council created policies for the
administration of the government and execution of the laws and was accountable to the legislature for its
actions.

Legislature
The 2007 legislature was the National Assembly. It was bicameral, with a partially elected Senate and a fully
elected House of Representatives. In total, the legislature contained 630 members. The Senate had 150
members, 74 of whom were appointed by the Senate Selection Committee rather than elected (the other 76
Senators were elected, one from each province, or Changwat) (Secs. 111-114). When not acting in concert
with the House as the full National Assembly, the Senate had fairly limited legislative powers. Still, the Senate
was in charge of scrutiny of appropriations bills (Sec. 168) and the Council of Ministers (Sec. 162), as well as
the actions of the independent organs. The Senate also advised and consented to the appointment of persons to
various courts and independent organs.[29] The Senate could not be dissolved, and Senators sat for six-year
terms (Sec. 117). The other 480 members of the legislative branch sat in the House (Sec. 93). Four hundred of
these House representatives were elected on a constituency basis, while the other 80 were elected on a party-
list basis (Sec. 93). The House had the true legislative power, and it could also remove the Prime Minister and
Council of Ministers through a vote of no-confidence (Secs. 158-159). While House members sat for four-year
terms (Sec. 104), the House could be dissolved by the King at any time before the end of that term (Sec. 108).

Judiciary
In the 2007 Constitution as in the 2017 Constitution, the highest court of Thailand is the Constitutional Court.
This nine-judge panel was selected in various ways (Sec. 204). Three members were elected by the Supreme
Court of Justice from among its ranks. Two were similarly elected from the Supreme Administrative Court.
The final four were not judges prior to obtaining this post. The 2007 Constitution mandated that two of these
members must be legal professionals, while the other two members must be in the fields of political science,
public administration, or other social sciences with a background in public administration. These four judges
were selected by the Selection Committee specific to the Constitutional Court, comprised of the other judges of
the Constitutional Court, the presidents of the House majority and minority, and one president from among the
presidents of the “statutory Independent Bodies.” (Sec. 206(1)). The Senate then approved the nominations,
and the King officially appointed them to the Court. The Constitutional Court was empowered with
discretionary jurisdiction to hear cases pertaining to constitutional issues, whether they were raised in the
process of a case or submitted for review by private persons. Additionally, the Court could resolve disputes
between government entities (Sec. 214).
Independent Organs
Some of the most important provisions of the 2007 Constitution were those creating various independent
agencies to oversee the politics of Thailand. These agencies were created in an attempt to prevent the
reoccurrence of political unrest that precipitated the 2006 coup. The National Human Rights Commission,
though already existing in the 1997 Constitution, was newly empowered to directly submit complaints and
recommendations regarding human rights violations to the Constitutional and Administrative Courts and to file
lawsuits on behalf of those injured by human rights violations (Secs. 256-257).[30] Further, while the 1997
Constitution created a position for up to three Ombudsmen, the 2007 Constitution created the Office of the
Ombudsmen, giving the Ombudsmen personnel and budget for their activities. Their powers of oversight and
reporting were also expanded, and it became a constitutional requirement that the Ombudsmen’s reports be
published in the Government Gazette (Secs. 242-245).[31] The Election Commission’s powers and duties were
expanded to include powers of audit, duties to help educate the Thai public about democracy, and explicit
power to make rules for Ministers in the performance of their duties (Sec. 236).[32] The State Audit
Commission shrank from ten members to seven, and its powers of audit were newly codified in the
Constitution rather than determined solely by organic act (Sec. 252-254).[33] The powers of the National
Counter Corruption Commission remained substantially the same between the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions
(Secs. 246-251).

The 2014 Military Coup

An election following the promulgation of the 2007 Constitution was held in December 2007, resulting in the
People’s Power Party (PPP), a Thaksin-allied political party led by Samak Sundaravej, winning almost an
absolute majority of seats in the Thai parliament.[34] In December 2008, anti-Thaksin protesters called the
“Yellow Shirts” (formally known as the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC)) seized two
international airports in Bangkok following six months of protests against the pro-Thaksin PPP.[35] Their
occupation ended when the Constitutional Court dissolved the PPP for election fraud in the 2007 election.
[36] However, in the 2011 elections, the pro-Thaksin Pheu Thai (PT) party led by Thaksin’s sister Yingluck
Shinawatra won a decisive victory.[37] This election win occurred against the backdrop of pro-Thaksin “Red
Shirt” protests against the military.[38] Increasing political violence beginning in November of 2013
eventually led to another military coup on May 22, 2014.[39]

In October 2013, the PT-controlled legislature passed an amnesty bill for all persons and parties involved in
any previous acts of political violence.[40] The bill was strongly opposed by the anti-Thaksin PDRC Yellow
Shirts, as well as some pro-Thaksin “Red Shirts”.[41] The PT later withdrew the bill, but by then the protests
had morphed into a call (from the PDRC Yellow Shirts) for the toppling of the PT government.[42] The focus
of the protests partially shifted to the PT government’s “rice-pledging scheme”: an economic move that lost
Thailand billions of U.S. dollars in rice sales and included many loopholes that allowed for the siphoning off
of money.[43]

In response to the allegations of corruption, the PT government dissolved the parliament and called for a snap
election on 2 February 2014.[44] The PDRC Yellow Shirts, however, actively boycotted the elections and
called for greater reform than a new parliament – they demanded that the government relinquish all caretaking
duties as well.[45] Violence then broke out between armed protesters from the Yellow Shirts and Red Shirts at
election polling sites.[46] It was after three months of this political violence that the military declared martial
law on 20 May 2014. After that, General Prayuth Chan-ocha summoned the leaders from the opposing political
sides and attempted a negotiation process.[47] After talks broke down, the National Council for Peace and
Order (NCPO), led by General Prayuth, seized control of the country on May 22 – possibly aided by the fact
that the military temporarily detained the leaders involved in the negotiation talks during the coup transition.
[48] General Prayuth announced that elections would be held in October 2015.[49]
The 2014 Interim Constitution and the Drafting Process for the
2017 Constitution
On 22 July 2014, two months after the military coup, the NCPO (the new military junta) announced the 2014
Interim Constitution, drafted by an advisory committee appointed by the NCPO and signed by King Bhumibol
Adulyadej.[50] This Interim Constitution granted “sweeping powers” to General Prayuth and also established a
drafting process for a new constitution.[51]

The 2014 Interim Constitution created two entities directly responsible for the drafting and approval of a new
draft constitution: the National Reform Council (NRC) and the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC). The
NRC consisted of 250 members appointed by the King on recommendation of the NCPO and was tasked with
recommending reform and guidance in several areas, including the work of the CDC (Secs. 27-31). The CDC
itself was designed as a 36-person committee consisting of: 20 NRC appointees; five appointees each from the
National Legislative Assembly, the Council of Ministers, and the NCPO; and a Chairperson appointed by the
NCPO (Sec. 32). The CDC member selection process was therefore entirely controlled by the NCPO and
NCPO-appointed bodies. The CDC was tasked with proposing a draft constitution to the NRC within 120 days
of receiving initial guidance from the NRC on the drafting process (Sec. 34). The CDC was also required to
submit a draft constitution to the Council of Ministers and the NCPO for recommendations (Sec. 36).

After many delays, in September 2015 the CDC’s draft constitution was presented to the National Reform
Council for a vote; however, the constitution draft was rejected.[52] The draft was largely disapproved of by
many different political camps.[53] Subsequently, and in accordance with the Interim Constitution provisions,
the CDC and NRC were both dissolved and the process started over.[54]

On 5 October 2015, the NCPO itself selected 21 individuals to constitute the second Constitutional Drafting
Committee and charged the Committee with drafting a constitution within six months.[55] This second CDC
created a draft constitution that was this time approved by a newly formed NRC and presented to the public on
26 March 2016.[56] Next, a national referendum was scheduled so the public could vote on the draft
constitution. However, ahead of that referendum, much public debate over the draft was banned by legislation
and activists and journalists critical of the draft were arrested.[57] A referendum on the draft constitution was
held in August 2016.[58] The referendum passed by a 61.45% majority with a turnout of 55% of eligible
voters.[59]

In January 2017, King Maha Vajiralongkorn Bodindradebayavarangkun (who succeeded to the throne in
October 2016 after the death of his father King Bhumibol) unexpectedly recommended constitutional changes
to the National Legislative Assembly (the NCPO-appointed legislature), after the referendum but before the
constitution’s promulgation.[60] In doing so, King Maha broke from the tradition of royal non-intervention on
political matters. There was no explanation for the requested changes from the military government or the
royal household,[61] except that King Maha requested the changes to “ensure his royal powers”.[62] Some
suggested changes removed draft provisions requiring government consultation before royal actions, and
therefore preserved the King’s decision-making power, including in times of political crisis.[63] The NCPO
accepted these changes, and King Maha signed the constitution; it was then ratified on 6 April 2017.[64]

The 2017 Constitution

The King
The 2017 Constitution includes several innovations from the 2007 Constitution. As under the 2007
constitutional scheme, the King has little direct power. However, King Maha’s successful last-minute
amendment requests did grant the King control over whether to appoint a regent in his absence, and the power
to choose this regent (Sec. 20-22).[65]
Just as in the 2007 Constitution, the King has the power to veto legislation passed by the National Assembly
subject to an override of a two-thirds vote by the Assembly (Sec. 146). The King also retains the power to
dissolve the House of Representatives and call for a new general election (Sec. 103).

The 2017 Constitution includes several innovations from the 2007 Constitution. As under the 2007
constitutional scheme, the King has little direct power. However, King Maha’s successful last-minute
amendment requests did grant the King control over whether to appoint a regent in his absence, and the power
to choose this regent (Sec. 20-22).[65]

Just as in the 2007 Constitution, the King has the power to veto legislation passed by the National Assembly
subject to an override of a two-thirds vote by the Assembly (Sec. 146). The King also retains the power to
dissolve the House of Representatives and call for a new general election (Sec. 103).

Executive
The process of selecting the executive branch is substantially the same in the 2017 Constitution as in the 2007
Constitution. The Prime Minister must be selected from among the House of Representatives and with the
approval of over half of the House (Sec. 159). The King then officially appoints the person who received the
approval. The Council of Ministers is then appointed by the King, who is empowered to appoint up to 35
members (the maximum number of members in the Council) (Sec. 158). Each Minister is removable by the
King upon the advice of the Prime Minister (Sec. 171).

Legislature
Under the 2017 Constitution, the National Assembly of Thailand remains a bicameral legislature consisting of
a House of Representatives and a Senate (Sec. 79).

The House of Representatives now consists of 500 members instead of 480; 350 members are directly elected
by constituents while the other 150 are chosen from party lists (Sec. 83).[66] Members of the House serve
four-year terms (Sec. 99). Bills must originate in the House and be submitted by either the Council of
Ministers, a minimum of 20 members of the House, or a petition supported by at least 10,000 citizens eligible
to vote (Sec. 133). House members may also initiate no-confidence proceedings against the Prime Minister, an
individual Minister, or the Council of Ministers by a one-fifth vote, and they may adopt a vote of no-
confidence by over half of all members of the House (Secs. 151, 158).

The Senate now consists of 200 members instead of 150, appointed according to the Organic Act on
Installation of Senators – their appointment is no longer governed by constitutional provisions (Sec. 107).
[67] Senators serve five-year terms (Sec. 109), and are not allowed to be associated with any political party
(Sec. 113). Similar to the Senate under the 2007 Constitution, the 2017 Constitution Senate’s powers derive
mainly from their involvement in scrutiny and appointment confirmations.

Besides passing bills, members of the National Assembly have a variety of other powers. Legislators may
petition the King to call an extraordinary session upon agreement of at least one-third of the Assembly (Sec.
123). They may also submit a bill to the Constitutional Court for review of its constitutionality by a vote of at
least one-tenth of the Assembly (Sec. 148).

The 2017 Constitution emphasizes the strict rules in place to prevent corruption amongst legislators (Sec. 144).
Several provisions are also dedicated to preventing “conflicts of interest” for legislators and Ministers, such as:
possible bribes; undue influence in business or government employment or compensation; or potential to
obstruct the rights of the media.

Selection Committee
In a slight departure from the 2007 Constitution, the 2017 Constitution establishes a single Selection
Committee that is empowered to appoint members of the Constitutional Court and the constitutionally-created
independent organs. Permanent members of the Selection Committee are: the President of the Supreme Court
as Chairperson; the President of the House of Representatives; the House Leader of the Opposition; and the
President of the Supreme Administrative Court (Sec. 203). Additional members to the Selection Committee are
appointed either by the independent organs (in the case of appointments to the Constitutional Court) (Sec. 203)
or the Constitutional Court in conjunction with independent organs not currently in the appointment process (in
the case of appointments to an independent organ) (Sec. 217).

Judiciary
The judicial branch is composed of Courts of Justice (criminal courts) (Secs. 194-196), Administrative Courts
(Sec. 197-198), Military Courts (Sec. 199), and the Constitutional Court (Secs. 200-214). The 2017
Constitution continues the Thai constitutional tradition of paying special attention to the Constitutional Court:
provisions specific to the Constitutional Court make up over half of all the Constitution’s judicial provisions.

The composition of the Constitutional Court changes slightly from the 2007 to the 2017 Constitution. The
Constitutional Court still consists of nine judges (Sec. 200). The 2017 Constitution still dictates that three of
these judges be experienced members of the Supreme Court (the highest Court of Justice), elected by the
Supreme Court itself. Two judges must still be experienced judges of the Supreme Administrative Court,
similarly elected by the Supreme Administrative Court itself. One judge must be an accomplished university
professor in law, and one must be an accomplished university professor “in political science or public
administration”. The final two judges, in a break from the 2007 Constitution, must be selected from among
high-level government officials.[68] Power over the selection of these last four judges goes to the Selection
Committee, which in this instance consists of: the President of the Supreme Court as Chairperson; the
President of the House of Representatives; the House Leader of the Opposition; the President of the Supreme
Administrative Court; and others appointed by other constitutionally-created Independent Organs (Sec. 203).

The approval process, term lengths, and powers for the Constitutional Court remain substantially the same in
the 2017 Constitution. Every appointee to the Constitutional Court must be approved by at least one-half of the
Senate (Sec. 204). Constitutional Court judges serve non-renewable seven-year terms (Sec. 207). Cases may
reach the Constitutional Court by referral from another court (Sec. 212); by individual petition (Sec. 213); or
by submission by the Prime Minister or one-tenth of the total members of the National Assembly (Sec. 148).

Independent Organs
The 2017 Constitution removed some constitutional organizations and reformed others. One substantial change
is that no independent organ now has its reports published publicly in the Government Gazette.

Under the 2017 Constitution, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) no longer has the power to
submit complaints or reports to the courts, and it may no longer file lawsuits on behalf of those injured by
human rights violations.[69] The NHRC’s duties instead include reporting human rights violations to the
National Assembly and the Council of Ministers and issuing recommendations to prevent or provide redress
for such violations (Sec. 247). The NHRC is also generally tasked with promoting and protecting human rights
in Thailand, as well as reporting “the correct facts without delay when there is a report on the human rights
situation in Thailand which is incorrect or unfair.” (Sec. 247). The NHRC consists of seven members who
serve non-renewable seven-year terms (Sec. 246). Instead of being appointed by the King and Senate, NHRC
members are instead appointed through a special process dictated by organic act that includes the participation
of outside human rights organizations (Sec. 246).[70]

The State Audit Commission (SAC) has substantially the same powers as under the 2007 Constitution: to
create government audit policy and to advise on the spending of government funds. Additionally, the 2017
Constitution gives the SAC power to order penalties in the case of governmental fiscal irresponsibility (Sec.
240).[71] The SAC consists of seven members chosen by the Selection Committee (Sec. 238) who serve non-
renewable seven-year terms (Sec. 239).

The number of Ombudsmen according to the 2017 Constitution is set at three, all appointed by the Selection
Committee (Sec. 228) and who serve non-renewable seven-year terms (Sec. 229). The Ombudsmen still have
the powers of fact-finding and recommendations for changes in the event of government misconduct (Sec.
230). The Ombudsmen may also still refer matters of government misconduct to the Constitutional or
Administrative Court if the matter is within their respective jurisdictions (Sec. 231).

The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) has substantially the same powers and composition as the
National Counter Corruption Commission of the 2007 Constitution. The NACC consists of nine members
chosen by the Selection Committee (Sec. 232) who serve non-renewable seven-year terms (Sec. 233). The
NACC is specifically empowered to investigate accusations of corruption or other misconduct when levied
against political officials, members of Independent Organs, the Auditor-General, or judges of the
Constitutional Court (Sec. 234). The NACC is also empowered to make determinations upon their
investigations and to require the investigated persons to disclose financial information related to themselves
and their families (Sec. 234). In a slightly augmented method that is less open to public scrutiny, members of
the NACC may themselves be investigated for corruption and other misconduct upon accusation by at least
one-fifth of the National Assembly or a petition signed by at least 20,000 persons providing reasonable
evidence; in such a case, the President of the Supreme Court will appoint a panel of independent investigators
to handle the matter (Secs. 236, 237).[72]

The Election Commission retains substantially the same powers under the 2017 Constitution – it has
considerable power over elections, including the power to hold, supervise, investigate, and suspend the results
of elections (Sec. 224). The Commission is also in charge of supervising the operation of political parties. The
organization of the Commission was augmented: it now consists of seven members, five chosen by the
Selection Committee and two chosen by the Supreme Court (Sec. 222).[73] The commissioners serve non-
renewable seven-year terms (Sec. 223).

Amendments (Section 256)

The 2017 Constitution amendment process differs significantly from the 2007 process. The ways a
constitutional amendment may be proposed remain the same: by the Council of Ministers; by at least one-fifth
of the House of Representatives; by at least one-fifth of the entire National Assembly; or by a petition from at
least 50,000 eligible voters. A proposed amendment must then go through three rounds of voting in the
Assembly. Under the 2007 Constitution, each round of voting requires a simple majority vote by the entire
Assembly for the amendment to pass. The 2017 Constitution amendment process adds more requirements for
amendment passage, including approval from at least one-half of the whole Assembly; one-third of the Senate;
and twenty percent of each political party whose members do not hold positions of Minister or President or
Vice-President of the House.[74] Proposed amendments to certain provisions of the Constitution further
require approval by referendum. Moreover, ten percent of the House, the Senate, or the entire Assembly may
submit a proposed amendment to the Constitutional Court for review of its constitutionality.

As in the 2007 Constitution, the 2017 Constitution prohibits any constitutional amendment “which amounts to
changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of the
State. . . .” (Sec. 255).

Rights
While the list of people’s rights in the 2007 Constitution spanned 35 sections, the list of rights in the 2017
Constitution spans 25 sections. Notable changes in rights in the 2017 Constitution are: the simplification of
rights of expression and media (Secs. 34-35);[75] the reduction of rights related to public health and welfare
(Sec. 47);[76] the removal of several rights regarding access to justice and the criminal justice system (Sec.
29);[77] and the weakening of rights to access government-held information (Sec. 41).[78] Newly enumerated
rights include rights of the consumer (Sec. 46) and rights of the mother (Sec. 48). Enumerated rights regarding
political parties underwent some change – constitutional provision now specifically permits any law designed
“to ensure that the administration [of a political party] be carried out independently and free from manipulation
or inducement of any person who is not a member of such party.” (Sec. 45). The provision also authorizes
“oversight measures” to prevent and identify election law violations.

Just as in the 2007 Constitution, the 2017 Constitution includes caveats and limitations after almost every
listed right.

Post-2017 Developments
General elections for parliament were again held in Thailand in 2019. In February 2019, before the election,
the Constitutional Court dissolved the latest incarnation of Thaksin’s party, the Thai Raksa Chart party (“Thai
Save the Nation”, or TSN).[79] TSN had nominated Princess Ubolratana Rajakanya (King Maha’s sister) as
their leader, and it was on this basis that the Court dissolved the party for “undermining the constitutional
monarchy”.[80] The general elections were held on 9 March 2019, amid several complaints alleging election
fraud.[81] A pro-army party led by General Prayuth claimed victory.[82] In November 2019, the
Constitutional Court dissolved the third-largest party in parliament, the Future Forward Party (FFP), for an
illegal loan; the FFP and its leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit had been especially critical of Prime
Minister Prayuth.[83] Student anti-government protests erupted in response to the Court’s dissolution of the
FFP, and anti-government protests continued.[84]

WHAT ABOUT THE PHILIPPINES?

If we explore the Philippine culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a
good overview of the deep drivers of the Philippine culture relative to other world
cultures.

POWER DISTANCE
This dimension deals with the fact that all individuals in societies are not equal – it
expresses the attitude of the culture towards these inequalities amongst us. Power
Distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions
and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed
unequally.

At a score of 94, The Philippines is a hierarchical society. This means that people accept
a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further
justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities,
centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is
a benevolent autocrat

INDIVIDUALISM
The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a
society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people´s self-image is
defined in terms of “I” or “We”. In Individualist societies people are supposed to look
after themselves and their direct family only. In Collectivist societies people belong to ‘in
groups’ that take care of them in exchange for loyalty.

The Philippines, with a score of 32, is considered a collectivistic society. This is manifest
in a close long-term commitment to the member ‘group’, be that a family, extended
family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount, and
over-rides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong
relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In
collectivist societies offence leads to shame and loss of face, employer/employee
relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion
decisions take account of the employee’s in-group, management is the management of
groups.

MASCULINITY
A high score (Masculine) on this dimension indicates that the society will be driven by
competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the winner / best
in field – a value system that starts in school and continues throughout organisational
life.

A low score (Feminine) on the dimension means that the dominant values in society are
caring for others and quality of life. A Feminine society is one where quality of life is the
sign of success and standing out from the crowd is not admirable. The fundamental
issue here is what motivates people, wanting to be the best (Masculine) or liking what
you do (Feminine).

The Philippines scores 64 on this dimension and is thus a Masculine society. In

Masculine countries people “live in order to work”, managers are expected to be
decisive and assertive, the emphasis is on equity, competition and performance and
conflicts are resolved by fighting them out.
UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE
The dimension Uncertainty Avoidance has to do with the way that a society deals with
the fact that the future can never be known: should we try to control the future or just
let it happen? This ambiguity brings with it anxiety and different cultures have learnt to
deal with this anxiety in different ways. The extent to which the members of a culture
feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs and
institutions that try to avoid these is reflected in the score on Uncertainty Avoidance.

The Philippines scores 44 on this dimension and thus has a low preference for avoiding
uncertainty. Low UAI societies maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts
more than principles and deviance from the norm is more easily tolerated. In societies
exhibiting low UAI, people believe there should be no more rules than are necessary and
if they are ambiguous or do not work they should be abandoned or changed. Schedules
are flexible, hard work is undertaken when necessary but not for its own sake, precision
and punctuality do not come naturally, innovation is not seen as threatening.

LONG TERM ORIENTATION

This dimension describes how every society has to maintain some links with its own
past while dealing with the challenges of the present and future, and societies
prioritise these two existential goals differently. Normative societies. which score low on
this dimension, for example, prefer to maintain time-honoured traditions and norms
while viewing societal change with suspicion. Those with a culture which scores high, on
the other hand, take a more pragmatic approach: they encourage thrift and efforts in
modern education as a way to prepare for the future.

A very low score of 27 indicates that the Philippines are more normative than pragmatic.
People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they
are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively
small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

INDULGENCE
One challenge that confronts humanity, now and in the past, is the degree to which
small children are socialized. Without socialization we do not become “human”. This
dimension is defined as the extent to which people try to control their desires and
impulses, based on the way they were raised. Relatively weak control is called
“Indulgence” and relatively strong control is called “Restraint”. Cultures can, therefore,
be described as Indulgent or Restrained.

With a low score of 42, the culture of the Philippines is one of Restraint. Societies with a
low score in this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast
to Indulgent societies, Restrained societies do not put much emphasis on leisure time
and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the
perception that their actions are Restrained by social norms and feel that indulging
themselves is somewhat wrong.

WHAT ABOUT THAILAND?

If we explore the Thai culture through the lens of the 6-D Model©, we can get a good
overview of the deep drivers of Thai culture relative to other world cultures.

POWER DISTANCE
This dimension deals with the fact that all individuals in societies are not equal – it
expresses the attitude of the culture towards these inequalities amongst us. Power
Distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions
and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed
unequally.

Thailand scores 64 on PDI index, slightly lower than the average Asian countries (71). It
is a society in which inequalities are accepted; a strict chain of command and protocol
are observed. Each rank has its privileges and employees show loyalty, respect and
deference for their superiors in return for protection and guidance. This may lead to
paternalistic management. Thus, the attitude towards managers are more formal, the
information flow is hierarchical and controlled.

INDIVIDUALISM
The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a
society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people´s self-image is
defined in terms of “I” or “We”. In Individualist societies people are supposed to look
after themselves and their direct family only. In Collectivist societies people belong to ‘in
groups’ that take care of them in exchange for loyalty.

With a score of 20 Thailand is a highly collectivist country. This is manifest in a close

long-term commitment to the member ‘group’ (a family, extended family, or extended
relationships). Loyalty to the in-group in a collectivist culture is paramount, and over-
rides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships
where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. In order to
preserve the in-group, Thai are not confrontational and in there communication a “Yes”
may not mean an acceptance or agreement. An offence leads to loss of face and Thai
are very sensitive not to feel shamed in front of their group. Personal relationship is key
to conducting business and it takes time to build such relations thus patience is
necessary as well as not openly discuss business on first occasions.

MASCULINITY
A high score (Masculine) on this dimension indicates that the society will be driven by
competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the winner/best
in field – a value system that starts in school and continues throughout organisational
life.

A low score (Feminine) on the dimension means that the dominant values in society are
caring for others and quality of life. A Feminine society is one where quality of life is the
sign of success and standing out from the crowd is not admirable. The fundamental
issue here is what motivates people, wanting to be the best (Masculine) or liking what
you do (Feminine).

Thailand scores 34 on this dimension and is thus considered a Feminine society.

Thailand has the lowest Masculinity ranking among the average Asian countries of 53
and the World average of 50. This lower level is indicative of a society with less
assertiveness and competitiveness, as compared to one where these values are
considered more important and significant. This situation also reinforces more
traditional male and female roles within the population.

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE
The dimension Uncertainty Avoidance has to do with the way that a society deals with
the fact that the future can never be known: should we try to control the future or just
let it happen? This ambiguity brings with it anxiety and different cultures have learnt to
deal with this anxiety in different ways. The extent to which the members of a culture
feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs and
institutions that try to avoid these is reflected in the score on Uncertainty Avoidance.

Thailand scores an intermediate 64 on this dimension, but it slightly indicating a

preference for avoiding uncertainty.
In order to minimize or reduce this level of uncertainty, strict rules, laws, policies, and
regulations are adopted and implemented. The ultimate goal of this population is to
control everything in order to eliminate or avoid the unexpected. As a result of this high
Uncertainty Avoidance characteristic, the society does not readily accept change and is
very risk adverse. Change has to be seen for the greater good of the in group.

LONG TERM ORIENTATION

This dimension describes how every society has to maintain some links with its own
past while dealing with the challenges of the present and future, and societies
prioritise these two existential goals differently. Normative societies. which score low on
this dimension, for example, prefer to maintain time-honoured traditions and norms
while viewing societal change with suspicion. Those with a culture which scores high, on
the other hand, take a more pragmatic approach: they encourage thrift and efforts in
modern education as a way to prepare for the future.

Thailand’s low score of 32 indicates that Thai culture is more normative than pragmatic.
People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth; they
are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively
small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results.

INDULGENCE
One challenge that confronts humanity, now and in the past, is the degree to which
small children are socialized. Without socialization we do not become “human”. This
dimension is defined as the extent to which people try to control their desires and
impulses, based on the way they were raised. Relatively weak control is called
“Indulgence” and relatively strong control is called “Restraint”. Cultures can, therefore,
be described as Indulgent or Restrained.

With an intermediate score of 45, a preference on this dimension cannot be determined

for Thailand.