Suradet supports amending the constitution to establish a Constituent Assembly (CA) elected by the people, reduce the power of the Senate (S), and prevent it from appointing independent agencies, assigning that role to the judiciary instead, while keeping removal powers intact. He suggests abolishing constituency MPs, having only party-list MPs to reduce the influence of local power brokers and capitalists, which would help combat corruption. He proposes a cabinet formula with a single Prime Minister from MPs and the rest appointed outsiders, staffed by capable professionals.
On 6 June 2026, Suradet Yasawat, former deputy leader of the Palang Pracharath Party, commented on differing views regarding constitutional amendments. He personally agrees with amending the constitution because it still has many weaknesses that need fixing to become strengths that can drive the country forward and effectively fight corruption. This is very important for Thailand, where corruption is widespread at all levels nationwide. If corruption cannot be suppressed, the country will not progress, and benefits will go only to local groups, including collusive bidding and kickbacks. Reform should start with having a Constituent Assembly (CA) elected nationwide, enabling the public to participate in selecting their CA members from all areas, so the CA can draft a new constitution aligned with the people and able to fight corruption.
Suradet stated that reforms mustaddress the institutionswithin the legislative system, namely the Senate and the House of Representatives. Regarding the Senate, members should be directly elected by the people. Currently, Senators come from professional groups, which he disagrees with because professional groups only represent certain segments. Also, the education level for new Senators is not specified, so anyone can become a Senator. This differs from the 1997 constitution, which required a minimum of a bachelor's degree and direct election. Each Senator was independent and worked using their own knowledge for the people. Law reviews took time but yielded laws directly benefiting citizens. However, if Senators belong to the same group with political parties behind them, they can collude to draft or filter laws benefiting parties or individuals, not the public. Therefore, Senators should be directly elected, and professional group appointments abolished.
Suradet also said he disagrees with the Senate's involvement in appointing independent agencies. If the Senate has political party groups behind it, they will pick their own people and reject qualified nominees from agencies. He wants independent agencies to be truly independent and proposes that the judiciary have the highest authority to select personnel for these agencies, as courts represent the highest justice process, understand the law well, are highly neutral, and are the most trustworthy. Meanwhile,the Senate's roleshould be to provide checks and balances, with power to remove members.
Suradet noted that in many countries, all MPs come from party-list systems. Thailand's failure to do this stems from the "local power broker" system that wants to maintain control in their areas, which the general public opposes. Local power brokers are influential figures who dominate voters through networks in each province, and political parties recruit these brokers to win elections and form governments, then divide up benefits. Therefore, he proposes abolishing constituency MPs to dismantle these local powers, leaving only party-list MPs who do not represent specific areas. Without geographic bases, budgets and development funds would be distributed nationwide, not just to areas represented by government MPs, creating inequality. Regarding concerns about the lack of local MPs to oversee areas, he points out that provincial administrative organizations (PAOs), elected by local people, already fulfill that role.
"For those who used to be constituency MPs, I want to say that all MPs still have potential in their areas and can run for local office such as PAO chief, mayor, or even for party-list MP positions because they are capable individuals. The reason to abolish constituency MPs is to help dismantle local power, reduce corruption problems. Though corruption will still exist locally, it will decline significantly because local power brokers will benefit less. I urge cooperation," Suradet emphasized.
Suradet said regarding the cabinet composition, currently appointed from MPs within parties and outsiders, he prefers the Prime Minister to be the only MP, usually from the party-list, while all other cabinet ministers should be appointed outsiders with expertise, experience, maturity, proven past achievements, broad social acceptance, and real proficiency in their ministries. This prevents competition and trading of ministerial posts or MPs banding together to bargain for ministries, ensuring capable ministers who genuinely work for the country and develop all provinces. MPs would not be able to pressure these outsiders. This also curbs the influence of capitalists and MPs seeking ministerial posts and reduces vote-buying in elections. Many countries use outsiders as ministers; for example, the Netherlands appoints ministers who may not stand for election but can attend parliamentary sessions and are accountable to the House of Representatives. Singapore’s Prime Minister can appoint knowledgeable non-MP ministers to bring in experts to govern the country.He added thatnon-MP ministers with specialized knowledge can be appointed to manage the country effectively.
Suradet continued that he does not want the ethical standards section amended, as it is very good and should be retained because national and ministerial leaders must have ethics. However, Thailand can adapt constitutions from other countries to fit its context. Countries with less corruption tend to advance further. We must solve corruption by changing the system, not just talk. If local power brokers are dismantled, corruption will decrease, and budgets will be distributed evenly rather than concentrated in certain provinces. Any constitutional elements that conceal the influence of powerful groups or capitalists must be eliminated. Consider that if the government is led by capitalists, benefits go to capitalists, and local power brokers are effectively seen as capitalists themselves.