Page:รายงานการประชุม สผ (๒๔๗๕-๑๑-๒๕) b.pdf/6

 and in respect of which [people] are found to have the same opinion is, accordingly, not to be legislated. Because we have set our opinion as such, I think that [having no provision about the royal affirmation] would not matter, and I think that writing [a constitution] like this is better, for the sake of convenience."

Nai Nguan Thongprasoet replied: "In fact, I agree with you. But norms are not requirements. In addition, this thing is the first of its kind. There has never been such a thing in use."

Phraya Manathat-rat said: "In other countries, when they are going have a new lord of the land, they have [an affirmation provided] in their charters."

Phraya Ratchawangsan replied: "In some charters, there are provisions requiring such an affirmation. [In] our [country], we have learnt, for example, that the lord of the land has to make an affirmation before all the gods and Buddhist images, we then want to shut our mouths up."

Nai Nguan Thongprasoet said: "I am respectfully asking you if [the draft] should be amended in any way or not."

The President of the Constitution Drafting Subcommittee replied: "I do not find it necessary because it will not make [the draft] better or worse. It has already existed, why are we going to eradicate it? If this matter would curtail something or enhance some rights, it would, indeed, be appropriate. Such a provision is written merely for fancy purposes. It is known already, though not written about."

Nai Nguan Thongprasoet said: "For the understanding of all the citizenry, I beg you to resolve whether or not this is appropriate."