loading . . . From anti-monarchy sentiments to corruption, misinformation and fearmongering abound in Thai conservative rhetoric against const... From anti-monarchy sentiments to corruption, misinformation and fearmongering abound in Thai conservative rhetoric against constitutional reform
Thai voters now have less than a week to go before they go to the polls to vote in a historic constitutional reform referendum which asks whether they want a new constitution.
The 2017 Constitution is one of the lingering legacies of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), which led the military coup in 2014. Although the provisional clause empowering senators to join the House of Representatives when voting for a Prime Minister is no longer in effect, other issues remain: the processes for selecting senators and appointing members of independent bodies have been criticised, while some civil rights are no longer protected. Political parties and civil society groups have therefore called for a new constitution.
But the 8 February referendum is only the first of three required by the Constitutional Court. If voters agree that there should be a new constitution, they will need to go to the polls for a second time to approve the drafting process and a third time to approve a new draft constitution.
For political parties and civil society groups campaigning for a vote in favour of a new constitution, the stakes are high. If the majority does not vote in favour, there is no way of amending the Constitution. Amending specific sections is also not easy, as doing so requires the approval of the Senate, and many in the current senate have been called âblue senatorsâ because of their connection to the conservative Bhumjaithai Party. 26 bills have been proposed amending specific sections in the Constitution, but only one âchanging the election system so that two ballots are used instead of one â was approved.
Meanwhile, conservatives are campaigning against a new constitution, and while people have the freedom to believe what they believe, many reasons cited by these groups can be considered misinformation, even verging on fearmongering and fake news.
Playing on fear of a âblank chequeâ
Many conservatives are calling the referendum a âblank cheque,â including conservative political parties like United Thai Nation, which once nominated coup leader Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha as Prime Minister. Party leader Pirapan Salirathavibhaga said in a video clip that the Party opposes a new referendum, comparing it to signing a blank cheque that would allow bad politicians into power, lower ethical standards, and grant an amnesty.
The video clip has over 500,000 views and 9000 shares. It has also been reuploaded by other social media users.
The video clip of Pirapan Salirathavibhaga speaking against constitutional reform
However, it is incorrect to compare the first referendum to a blank cheque, as the process requires two more referendums before it is complete as well as approval by parliament. The public will be able to see a draft of the new constitution before they go to the polls for a final time to vote on it.
Other conservative politicians have also compared the first referendum to a blank cheque. Academic Jade Donavanik, now Prime Minister candidate for the Rak Chart Party, and Warong Dechgitvigrom, leader of the ultra-royalist Thai Pakdee Party, have both used the phrase.
During a debate organized by Matichon TV, Warong faced off against Bhumjaithai representative Nikorn Chamnong and used the phrase âblank chequeâ to describe approving the writing of a new constitution. A short video clip of the moment was posted onto Thai Pakdeeâs social media. It has 43,000 views and almost 100 shares.
Jade used the same phrase in a video clip posted on the Rak Chart Partyâs social media, which did not gain many views on Facebook but has over 10,000 views on TikTok. It is clear that the phrase has become a staple for conservatives.
The Thai Pakdee Partyâs Facebook video of Warongâs debate against Nikorn
The phrase spread to other conservative content creators. The TikTok account narok.city āļāļĢāļāļāđāļ§āļāļāļĢāļļāļ posted an AI-generated video clip with a voice over claiming that voting yes in the first referendum is âsigning a blank chequeâ for the constitutional drafting committee to âwrite whatever they want âĶ When we get to that time, we cannot demand anything because weâve allowed them to throw away the old one.â
This is also incorrect. There are many steps along the drafting process. Voters must first agree that there should be a new constitution, and the drafting process would only begin after it has been approved by voters, who will then see a draft constitution before deciding whether to approve it or not.
All videos posted by this TikTok user are AI-generated, with the content being opposed to a new constitution. The account became active on 12 January 2026, soon after the campaign for people to vote in favour of a new constitution began.
Â
narok.cityâs TikTok video. One commenter attempted to explain the process, but a reply insisted that section amendments are possible and so there is no need to write a new constitution
Accusations of treason
As a continuation of the âblank chequeâ charade, conservatives are spreading the false claim that the drafting committee can write anything, even changing the form of government or making Thailand a republic.
But in reality, it is impossible to rewrite the Constitution to change the form of government. The 2017 Constitution would still be in effect while a new constitution is being drafted, and the Constitutional Courtâs 18/2568 ruling made clear that a new constitution must be drafted within the limits of the current constitution, although it has been argued that no such limit should exist as the people have the constituent power. Refusing to do so could also mean another intervention from the Constitutional Court.
Although it is an exaggeration verging on fake news, this accusation still triggered an emotional reaction. Conservative public figures used it to attack the pro-amendment campaign and attracted a lot of social media shares.
For example, Somchai Swangkarn, a former junta-appointed senator, claimed during an interview on Channel 7Â Â on 9 January that the 2017 Constitution would be thrown out after the referendum and that it means the drafters could write anything.
âYou could even write it so that [Thailand] becomes a republic,â he said.
The full programme has 150,000 views on YouTube. The section has also been shared as a separate video clip by social media users.
Somchai made similar claims in a Thaipost interview, in which he said that voting yes in the referendum would be a blank cheque for drafters to write anything, including making the country a socialist regime or be governed by a president.
Somchaiâs Channel 7 interview has been shared as short video clips by TikTok users
nay.chan.08âs TikTok video
Some were concerned that Section 255 of the 2017 Constitution, which prohibits a change in regime, applies only to constitutional amendments and not when writing a new constitution, and so they believe that voting yes would be risking treason. However, the Constitutional Courtâs ruling 18/2568 stipulates that writing a new constitution must also follow the same rules as constitutional amendments. The false claim that there is a loophole as to whether or not Section 255 applies therefore plays on peopleâs fear to lend weight to accusations that voting yes to a new constitution would amount to treason. It is also an exaggeration to claim that rewriting the restrictions on constitutional amendments would lead to a future regime change.
Nevertheless, the narrative is popular among social media users. The TikTok account nay.chan.08 āļāļēāļĒāļāļąāļāļāļĢāđ, whose profile is all AI-generated clips attacking the pro-constitutional reform campaign and only became active over the last two weeks, posted a video clip with a voiceover claiming that the goal of the pro-reform campaign is to rewrite Section 1 of the Constitution, which says that Thailand is âone and indivisible Kingdom.â
The video clip has around 4000 views and 112 shares.
Another video clip posted by the narok.city āļāļĢāļāļāđāļ§āļāļāļĢāļļāļ TikTok account also made the claim that the pro-reform campaign wants to bypass Section 255 by calling for a new constitution. The clip has 145,000 views and around 5000 shares. It has also been reposted by other users.
narok.cityâs video clip about Section 255 have been reposted by other users
Constitutional amendment leads to amendment of the royal defamation law?
Accusations of treason and of wanting to overthrow the monarchy, of course, come as a package. Both are based on the same fears and the same logic which leads to the idea that there is a hidden agenda behind the call for a new constitution despite numerous restrictions to the drafting process.
The common denominator of this logic is the idea that politicians are backing the call for a new constitution so that they can amend the royal defamation law.
A survey of social media comments show that many netizens believe that the royal defamation law â Section 112 of the Criminal Code â is part of the Constitution, and that writing a new constitution means Section 112 would also be rewritten.
And despite explanations that Section 112 is part of the Criminal Code and not the Constitution, conservatives continue to claim that writing a new constitution would open the door to future amendments to the royal defamation law. Some claim that the royal defamation law is linked to Section 6 of the Constitution, which says that the King âshall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated.â
Comments on a TikTok video explaining that the royal defamation law is not part of the Constitution insisting that it is.
Claims have been made that amending this section would weaken the royal defamation law. Their reasoning is that, if the King is not constitutionally required to be revered, then there is no need for the royal defamation law and it can then be amended or repealed.
School of Life Foundation President Acharavadee Wongsakon, who recently held a discussion on protecting young people from brainwashing, posted a picture on her Facebook page calling for people to vote for the Bhumjaithai Party in the general election and vote against a new constitution in the referendum, claiming that voting yes in the referendum would lead to changes to sections concerning the monarchy in the Constitution and that, if the âorange partyâ gets a large vote, it would then try to amend the royal defamation law. The post has over 800 shares.
Meanwhile, TikTok user ratta.poom Mr.Poom posted a video clip claiming that the pro-constitutional reform movement wants to overthrow the monarchy. The account has over 200,000 followers, while the clip itself has over 14,000 views and 674 shares. The voiceover has also been used by other TikTok users.
Mallika Mahasook, former Democrat MP, also spread the claim. She said in a video clip that Section 112 is part of the 2017 Constitution, that the section protects institutions and national security, and that the pro-reform movement wants to amend the Constitution so they can amend Section 112.
Mallikaâs video clip has over 1 million views and 5000 shares, and the voiceover has been used by other TikTok users.
TikTok comments claiming that amending the Constitution would lead to amending the royal defamation law, or that all other legislation would be repealed along with the Constitution
But this reasoning overlooks the reality that it is virtually impossible to amend Section 6 and other sections related to the monarchy. The different political factions would have to negotiate and compromise before the content of a new constitution is approved by both the drafting committee and parliament. There is also the Constitutional Court, which has always taken a pro-monarchy stance, waiting to intervene.
It is also untrue to claim that amending the Constitution would pave the way to amending the royal defamation law, since it implies that the royal defamation law cannot be changed under the current constitution when in fact all legislation can be amended by the legislature under any constitution. This is why questions have been raised against the Constitutional Court when it dissolved the Move Forward Party for proposing to amend the royal defamation law, as amending legislation is already the authority of the legislature.
Old tale: 2017 Constitution was approved in a referendum
Another reason cited by conservatives for opposing the drafting of a new constitution is that the 2017 Constitution had been approved in a referendum.
But the 2016 referendum was neither free nor fair. It was conducted under the control of the NCPO junta, while people were told to âjust approve it and amend it later or we wonât get to have an election.â
At the time a large number of people who criticised the draft constitution or ran âvote noâ campaigns were prosecuted, while supporters of the military-supported constitution were allowed to campaign freely. There was also a lack of concerted action among critics of the 2017 Constitution. Some voted yes because they wanted a general election and/or because they believed the Constitution could be amended later. Some boycotted the referendum, while some voted no.
10 years later, many now know that the 2016 referendum was not a fair contest. Politicians who support the 2017 Constitution no longer use it to back their argument, but the narrative is still seen among netizens and utilized by some TikTok accounts that became active over the past month and only post AI-generated content attacking the pro-reform movement.
Another clip posted on the narok.city āļāļĢāļāļāđāļ§āļāļāļĢāļļāļ TikTok account on 12 January â the first day the account became active â claimed that the âunanimousâ vote of approval in the 2016 referendum supports the 2017 Constitution. The clip has 12,000 views, 470 shares, and has been reposted by other users.
The nay.chan.08 āļāļēāļĒāļāļąāļāļāļĢāđ TikTok account posted a clip on 11 January claiming that the 2017 Constitution was approved by 16 million voters and so could not be the result of a dictatorship. The clip has 15,000 views and 361 shares, but has since become unavailable.
The âanti-corruptionâ constitution
Another common reason used by supporters of the 2017 Constitution is that it was a constitution that would stamp out corruption. But questions have been raised whether this is true when corruption is becoming more common while independent bodies that should be monitoring the situation are weakened. From the collapse of the state audit building to the recent crane collapse in Nakhon Ratchasima, people are questioning whether the Constitution is used to stamp out opposition instead of corruption.
Meanwhile, supporters of the 2017 Constitution continue to claim that politicians fear this constitution because corruption carries a high penalty, spreading false information such as the claim that corruption is punishable by the death penalty or that there is no statute of limitation to corruption charges.
None of this is included anywhere in the 2017 Constitution.
Typically, the penalty for crimes is set out in the Criminal Code or other legislation, not in the Constitution. The penalties often cited by conservatives are also incorrect.
Moreover, a new constitution does not mean other legislation becomes invalid. Changing the Constitution is not a reset button, and constitutions often include provisional clauses that keep existing laws until they are replaced by new ones that are in line with the new constitution. Laws are not automatically repealed unless clauses in the new constitution specifically say so. There is also no reason to retain the statute of limitation, since it is something agreed upon by both conservatives and progressives.
Some TikTok video clips making false claims about anti-corruption measure in the 2017 Constitution
Nevertheless, the narrative of the âanti-corruption constitutionâ is common among anti-reform creators. The Facebook page Bangkok I Love You, which has over 400,000 followers, posted several pictures making the above claims. These pictures have thousands of shares and have been reposted by users on other platforms.
Claims have also been made that corrupt politicians would get off scot-free under a new constitution as criminal cases under the old constitution would be thrown out. Somchai Swangkarn claimed in the same Channel 7 interview that organic acts under the 2017 Constitution will be automatically repealed along with the Constitution and criminal proceedings in cases of corruption will be thrown out.
This is, again, not true. Generally, criminal proceedings will continue under laws in effect at the time, and organic acts under the old constitution do not automatically become invalid. It should also be noted that several criminal cases are still ongoing even though there have been two military coups in the past 20 years in which coup leaders repealed existing constitutions.
But social media users have posted short video clips of Somchaiâs interview and spread the claim, such as in one TikTok video clip with around 50,000 views and 367 shares.
Another old belief: politicians are the problem, not the law
This may sound like another way to say âcorruption,â but not quite. Conservatives have spoken about âethicsâ, which is vaguely defined and can include dissatisfaction with politiciansâ action (which are not crimes). Personal standards of what is âgoodâ are often justified by the 2017 Constitution giving the Constitutional Court the power to dismiss politicians. The cases that are most often cited are the two Pheu Thai former prime ministers dismissed over the last two years: Srettha Thavisin and Paetongtarn Shinawatra.
In response to Paul Pattaraponâs Facebook post about what is wrong with the 2017 Constitution, self-styled independent academic Atsadang Yommanak wrote that Srettha made an âethical misjudgementâ and that no one could have dismissed him if he had chosen âgood peopleâ for his Cabinet.
As for Paetongtarn, Atsadang wrote that the provision under the 2017 Constitution would not lead to her dismissal if she were âneutralâ and made the countryâs benefit a priority.
The post has over a thousand shares.
But neither Srettha nor Paetongtarn committed anything that would legally be considered a âcrimeâ in the same sense as crimes like money laundering, theft, or murder. The accusations against them are still for a matter of debate, and if they are to be dismissed, it should be done through parliamentary processes or by allowing voters to make a judgement during an election. It should not be up to the Constitutional Court to punish people over something as abstract as âethics.â
It should be noted that when the Constitutional Court dismissed Paetongtarn, it ruled that she committed no misconduct, but then ruled that she committed a serious breach of ethics.
In Sretthaâs case, the Court made its own conclusion that because he met with Thaksin Shinawatra, this was a reason for him to appoint Pichit Chuenban â Thaksinâs personal lawyer â to his Cabinet. It then ruled that Srettha committed a breach of ethics.
These cases show that the 2017 Constitution allows a broad interpretation of ethics, and so enforcement of these provisions is inconsistent.
During a Matichon TV debate, Jade responded to Pheu Thai MP candidate Chaturon Chaisaeng by saying that no constitution in the world can stamp out corruption because bad people are bad. In the same way, rules governing Buddhist monks cannot stop monks from violating them, he said, but the 2017 Constitution is proven to be an effective tool of all that is bad in politics. Jade cited Paetongtarn and Sretthaâs dismissals, as well as the dissolution of the Move Forward Party.
Jadeâs response was clipped and shared on social media, including on the right-wing history Facebook page āļĪāđ
-Â Lue History, which has 460,000 views and 4300 shares.
The post on Lue History
For those who believe that the 2017 Constitution can stamp out bad politicians, writing a new constitution triggers the fear that the âbad politiciansâ or those banned by the Constitutional Court will return.
Atavit Suwanpakdee, a United Thai Nation Party candidate for Prime Minister, said during a Nation Online debate that repealing the 2017 Constitution, will result in the return of banned politicians. He claimed that this is because their offense would be removed as there is no law.
The argument that the problem is the nature of politicians, not the Constitution, is also seen among anti-constitutional reform netizens. Facebook accounts like that of Wuttichai Inmee, which has over 120,000 followers, posted a picture with the message âAmend your fundamental nature first, and only then amend the Constitution.â The Post has over 2000 shares.
Meanwhile, other netizens went so far as to say that the military should just take over because politicians are all bad.
The same image posted by Wuttichai Inmee on Facebook have been shared on TikTok, with commenters saying that politicians are the problem.
Another TikTok video clip saying that politicians are the problem, not the Constitution. The comment on the bottom right corner said that they want the military to take over.
Other arguments: waste of budget, economic issues, and section-by-section amendments
Other reasons are given for voting against an entirely new constitution, one of which is that referendums cost a lot of money. This is especially true after the Constitutional Court ruled that three referendums are needed, although only one is required in most countries after a draft is already completed. The current process is expensive because three referendums are required, but such is the restriction.
But conservatives often inflate the costs. Jade, for example, claimed in a social media video posted by Rak Chart Party while running a campaign in Nakhon Ratchasima that it would cost ten billion baht to conduct referendum and that the money could be used instead to solve economic problems. He also said that politicians are the problem, not the Constitution.
The video clip has 10,000 views and 24 shares on TikTok, which may not seem much. However, it has been reposted by other TikTok users, some of which have around 40,000 views and thousands of shares.
Rak Chart Partyâs TikTok video reposted by another user
The TikTok account thamjingmai āļāļēāļĄāļāļĢāļīāļāđāļĄāđāļāļīāļāđāļāļĢ posted a video clip making a similar claim, and that it would be much cheaper for parliaments to amend specific sections. The clip has almost 30,000 views and 767 shares and has been reposted by a number of TikTok users. Like many other TikTok accounts, this account only posts content against constitutional reform and AI-generated video clips and became active in the middle of January.
thamjingmaiâs AI-generated video clip making inflated claims about the budget used to conduct referendum being shared by several TikTok users
A Facebook user āļāļŦāļēāļĢāļāļĢāļ°āļĢāļēāļāļē āļŠ.āļŠāļ.150 posted a picture of a referendum ballot with a caption claiming that it costs nothing to amend sections of the Constitution in parliament. The post has over 1800 shares.
These claims based on unknown numbers. A referendum might also be less expensive if it is conducted at the same time as an election. The budget could be further reduced by designing a less complicated system. Meanwhile, there is no reason why a government could not both amend the Constitution and solve economic issues. For the pro-reform movement, a new constitution can build a structure that allows economic development and a strong political system that enables governments to implement policies is also part of solving economic issues.
It is also false to claim that it costs nothing to amend just specific sections, as everything costs money. Reform of the Senate and independent bodies, which conservative parties claim to support, also requires referendums. It is unclear how many referendums will be needed if parliament proposes several separate amendments, while any bill that proposes multiple amendments is unlikely to pass. Section-by-section amendments also require the approval of the Senate, and must pass through mechanisms under the 2017 Constitution, which was designed to make amendments difficult.
This overview of the rhetoric employed by the anti-constitutional reform side shows that some arguments might seem understandable, but many are based on misinformation or outright fraudulent.
The future of the Constitution now relies on the first step: the 8 February referendum.Â
eng editor 1
Fri, 2026-02-06 - 13:29
* Feature
* 2026 referendum
* Constitutional amendment
* conservatives
* Misinformation
* Fake news
(Feed generated with FetchRSS) http://dlvr.it/TQpKhq
