I just cannot understand the logic of Wanchai Sornsiri, a member of the National Reform Council (NRC), and his rejection of the draft constitution, and his "death wish" that this piece of supreme law be killed.
He said the other day he did not believe the draft charter, currently being modified by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC), would ever solve the country's conflicts. He said if the CDC killed the draft charter now, it would save the taxpayers about 4 billion baht, which would otherwise be spent on staging a referendum to gauge public opinion on whether they want it kept.
Mr Wanchai should know in his heart that the existing conflicts, particularly political conflicts, will not be completely resolved no matter how many draft charters are written, or how good a draft is.
Mr Wanchai said the government must announce clearly what is to be reformed and how long it will take for each reform to be accomplished.
That is easier said than done. Take, for instance, police reform, which is badly needed and has been talked about for years, yet nothing substantial has been started.
So, the main purpose of Mr Wanchai's call for the NRC to vote down the modified draft charter appears to be to postpone the election further to buy more time for reforms to be worked out and implemented rather than to be completed.
Whether his wish will be realised will be known around Aug 21-22 when the NRC is due to consider all questions to be asked in the referendum, particularly a contentious proposal from a group of 22 NRC members about whether the public wants reforms to take place within two years before there is an election.
Paiboon Nititawan, another NRC member, has been spearheading the campaign for a two-year period for reforms to take place before the country goes to the polls.
But besides the 22 NRC members, including Mr Paiboon, who have signed a motion demanding that their call for the two-year period of reform be put in the referendum, it is believed there are many others on the council who support their initiative but who did not put their names on the motion. In any case, the motion has been submitted to Thienchay Kiranant, the NRC president.
In a way, both Mr Paiboon and Mr Wanchai share the same objective for a delay in the election although their approaches are different as Mr Wanchai has called for the scrapping of the draft charter.
Nevertheless, if the majority of NRC members opt to include in the referendum the proposal for a two-year reform effort before the election, Mr Wanchai's death wish for the draft charter will be dropped. But he still retains his idea to put off the election.
The head of the PDRC Foundation, Suthep Thaugsuban, has also called for reforms before the country goes to the polls. One of his proposed reforms in the election law is to ensure political parties truly represent the people, not just a family or a small group of elites.
It is an open fact that most political parties today belong to a handful of rich families. Most of the members are just people who signed up simply to lend credibility to the parties having a mass following but who actually have no say in decision-making.
The Shinawatra family, for instance, owns the Pheu Thai Party while the Silpa-archa family owns the Chart Thai Pattana Party.
It is an ideal that parties should be a product of the people instead of being owned by individuals or families as has been the case for decades. How can Mr Suthep be so sure that he can make it by simply changing the election law?
But all the talk about reforms, before or after the election, will vanish into thin air if the majority of the NRC members vote down the draft charter, tentatively on Sept 7. In that case, everything will have to start all over again, from zero.
Veera Prateepchaikul is a former editor, Bangkok Post.