關於 issue resolution meaning ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

WATCH ALLAH'S RIGHT ON THE HOLY QUR'AN!

By: Abdullah Bukhari bin Abdul Rahim

Translated by: Nur Fatimah Zahrah binti Rahimin Affandi.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10207562111836285&id=1394678315

"Everybody! If there are any evil attempts by the jins or people that either wanted to bother or witch us, Allah will definitely make all of their efforts end in vain. All of the bad intentions and wretched desires will eventually crumble into dust. In order for that to happen, we should practice this verse":

وَقَدِمْنَا إِلَى مَا عَمِلُوا مِنْ عَمَلٍ فَجَعَلْنَاهُ هَبَاءً مَنْثُورًا

Meaning: And We will regard what they have done of deeds (what they thought was valid), and MAKE THEM AS DUST DISPERSED. (al-Furqan [25:23])

There was once this Ustaz on television shows that taught audiences "how to use" and benefit from the said verse stated above. I waited until the end of the show for the Ustaz to explain the true meaning of the verse that Allah SWT tried to convey to us. But it all ended with disappointment. The audience of the show could easily thought that "THIS IS THE VERSE TO EXPEL GHOSTS AND IS AN OBSTRUCTION FOR WITCHCRAFT." If they were asked "What is the true meaning of this verse?" Maybe a certain would answer "I don't really care, as long as I have a magic verse to expel ghosts then it is enough for me."

One day, when I ended my Commentary class there was a woman who came to me and seek for my validation on a Qur'anic verse that were said can ease lower back pain. An Ustazah once thought her the verse:

وَإِذَا بَطَشْتُمْ بَطَشْتُمْ جَبَّارِينَ

Meaning: "And when you strike, you strike as tyrants" (al-Syu'ara' [26:130])

"What is the back story of this verse? What did Allah wanted us to fathom and reflect on?" Those were the questions that I asked her. She then replied: "I know nothing, but the Ustazah said that this is the verse to ease lumbago."

"IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T AGREE" on the idea that Qur'an can cure you physically, but you should always put Allah's rights first when dealing with the Qur'an. What is Allah's rights in each and every verse of the Qur'an? It is so simple, we just have to truly understand the REAL MEANING and messages that Allah wanted to convey to us. Let's analyze the verses that were stated above.

THE FIRST VERSE WAS CONSIDERED AS THE VERSE THAT CAN DEMOLISH ALL OF THE ENEMIES' HORRENDOUS PLANS that came from surah al-Furqan. It told us about the charity of the non-believers that was not accepted by Allah in the Hereafter. No matter how much they did their charity, it will still be DISPERSED LIKE DUSTS. There are a few verses that addresses this issue as well:

قُلْ هَلْ نُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِالْأَخْسَرِينَ أَعْمَالًا (103) الَّذِينَ ضَلَّ سَعْيُهُمْ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَهُمْ يَحْسَبُونَ أَنَّهُمْ يُحْسِنُونَ صُنْعًا (104) أُولَئِكَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِآيَاتِ رَبِّهِمْ وَلِقَائِهِ فَحَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ فَلَا نُقِيمُ لَهُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَزْنًا (105) ذَلِكَ جَزَاؤُهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ بِمَا كَفَرُوا وَاتَّخَذُوا آيَاتِي وَرُسُلِي هُزُوًا (106)

Meaning: Say, (O Muhammad), "Shall we (believers) inform you of the greatest losers as to (their) deeds? (They are) those whose effort is lost in worldly life, while they think that they are doing well in work." Those are the ones who disbelieve in the verses of their Lord and in (their) meeting Him, so their deeds have become worthless; and We will not assign to them on the Day of Resurrection any importance. That is their recompense - Hell - for what they denied and (because) they took My signs and My messengers in ridicule (al-Kahf [18:103-106]).

This issue can also relate to (Ali 'Imran [3:10-11, 116-117]). We may be wondering why the 23rd verse of surah al-Furqan was said it could destroy all of other people's bad intentions towards us? It turns out that we should take a long pause to relate the real meaning of the verse and the benefits of the verse that was said by the Ustaz.

THE SECOND VERSE THAT WAS SAID CAN EASE LOWER BACK PAIN is from surah al-Syu'ara' and it was about the people of 'Ad that likes to oppress other people. To fathom the said verse, we need to refer to the tale of Prophet Hud in the surah from the verse 121 until 141. This is a far more reasonable way to deal with the Qur'an. The verse tells a story about the habit of people of 'Ad that likes to oppress other people just because they were blessed with strong physiques. Allah's commandments:

أَوَعَجِبْتُمْ أَنْ جَاءَكُمْ ذِكْرٌ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ عَلَى رَجُلٍ مِنْكُمْ لِيُنْذِرَكُمْ وَاذْكُرُوا إِذْ جَعَلَكُمْ خُلَفَاءَ مِنْ بَعْدِ قَوْمِ نُوحٍ وَزَادَكُمْ فِي الْخَلْقِ بَسْطَةً فَاذْكُرُوا آلَاءَ اللَّهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ

Meaning: (Prophet Hud preach the people of 'Ad, which said): "Then do you wonder that there has come to you a reminder from your Lord through a man from among you, that he may warn you? And remember when He made you successors after the people of Noah and He INCREASED YOU IN STATURE EXTENSIVELY. So remember the favors of Allah that you might succeed" (al-A'raf [7:69]).

After understanding the "lumbago" verse, in "the true meaning of the verse that Allah wanted us to understand", we should make a resolution not to oppress other people with the strengths that Allah blessed us with, not reading it just to cure lower back pain.

CONCLUSION?

1) Each and every verse of the Qur'an needs to be comprehended with Allah's original contexts before we make absurd assumptions. To make that happen, we should learn and value all of the tales delivered by referring to the previous and the following verse that we highlighted. This is what people who interact with the Qur'an should do to avoid misunderstanding and preserve the Qur'an as the book of guidance (al-Baqarah[2:2]) and not just for spells and charms.

2) It is also known that verses from the Qur'an can cure us physically (Yunus [10:57], al-Isra' [17:82] & Fussilat [41:44]). It was said by theologians like Imam al-Suyuti in his book al-Itqan Fi 'Ulum al-Quran in the chapter KHAWAS AL-QUR'AN (Benefits of Qur'an). That being said, the effectiveness of a verse depends on the "quality of one's faith" like said in this story:

أن رجلا مصابًا مرَّ به عبد الله بن مسعود، فقرأ في أذنه هذه الآية: { أَفَحَسِبْتُمْ أَنَّمَا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ عَبَثًا وَأَنَّكُمْ إِلَيْنَا لا تُرْجَعُونَ * فَتَعَالَى اللَّهُ الْمَلِكُ الْحَقُّ } ، حتى ختم السورة فَبَرَأ، [فذكر ذلك لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم] (5) ، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: "بماذا قرأت في أذنه؟" فأخبره، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: "والذي نفسي بيده، لو أن رجلا مُوقنا قرأها على جَبَل لزال".

Meaning: One day, Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud met a man that was afflicted with illness. H then, recite verses (al-Mu'minun [23:115-118]) and that man was healed. He told this story to Rasullullah SAW. The Messenger of Allah SAW said: What verse did you recite to his ears? ................ Rasulullah SAW then said, BY THE LORD'S NAME! IF A BELIEVER WHO IS TRULY CONVINCED WITH ALLAH'S POWERS AND HE THEN, READ VERSES OF THE QUR'AN TO A MOUNTAIN, THEN SURELY THE MOUNTAIN WILL EXPLODE.

3) We need to guide people how to interact with the Qur'an the right way by reading, understanding the real meaning of a verse and encourage them to always learn, do charity, have faith and taqwa to increase the effectiveness of the Qur'an for their body and soul.

Al-Quran is a holy book. Rasulullah SAW and his companions fought for Qur'an until the very end. If it is just a verse to dispel ghosts or a cure for lower back pain, then all of Rasulullah SAW and his companions sacrifices were a joke. Let's change the way we think and interact with the Qur'an because it can be an antidote FOR THE BODY AND SOUL. Later, if it is taught; this verse has a benefit of this and that, prioritize the real meaning of the verse because it is the manner of truly embracing Qur'an.

*Get the previous commentary notes at:

https://www.facebook.com/notatafsirabdullahbukhari

*Get the writer's book:

http://pts.com.my/S=e25b12b6e5fe2e54576c4c3b35587d6fea5e66f4/buku/ceritera-haji-wartawan-al-quran-tuhan-kami-datang/

http://pts.com.my/buku/ayat-ayat-syaitan-mombongkar-rahsia-jin-syaitan-dan-iblis-dalam-al-quran/

http://pts.com.my/buku/apabila-tuhan-berbicara/

http://pts.com.my/buku/berjalan..melihat..mentafsir-ceritera-wartawan-al-quran/

คำปรารถรัฐธรรมนูญ ๒๕๖๐ ไทย-อังกฤษ

รัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย
สมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัวมหาวชิราลงกรณ บดินทรเทพยวรางกูร
ตราไว้ ณ วันที่ ๖ เมษายน พุทธศักราช ๒๕๖๐
เป็นปีที่ ๒ ในรัชกาลปัจจุบัน
CONSTITUTION OF THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND
HIS MAJESTY KING MAHA VAJIRALONGKORN BODINDRADEBAYAVARANGKUN
Enacted on the 6th Day of April B.E. 2560;
Being the 2nd Year of the Present Reign.

​ศุภมัสดุ พระพุทธศาสนกาลเป็นอดีตภาค ๒๕๖๐ พรรษา ปัจจุบันสมัย จันทรคตินิยม กุกกุฏสมพัตสร จิตรมาส ชุณหปักษ์ ทสมีดิถี สุริยคติกาล เมษายนมาส ฉัฏฐสุรทิน ครุวาร โดยกาลบริเฉท
​สมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัวมหาวชิราลงกรณ บดินทรเทพยวรางกูร ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อมให้ประกาศว่า นายกรัฐมนตรีได้นำความกราบบังคมทูลว่า นับแต่พระบาทสมเด็จพระปรมินทรมหาประชาธิปก พระปกเกล้าเจ้าอยู่หัว ได้ทรงพระกรุณาโปรดเกล้าโปรดกระหม่อมพระราชทานรัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรสยามพุทธศักราช ๒๔๗๕ เป็นต้นมา การปกครองของประเทศไทยได้ดำรงเจตนารมณ์ยึดมั่นในระบอบประชาธิปไตยอันมีพระมหากษัตริย์
ทรงเป็นประมุขต่อเนื่องมาโดยตลอด แม้ได้มีการยกเลิก แก้ไขเพิ่มเติม และประกาศใช้รัฐธรรมนูญเพื่อจัดระเบียบการปกครองให้เหมาะสมหลายครั้ง แต่การปกครองก็มิได้มีเสถียรภาพหรือราบรื่นเรียบร้อยเพราะยังคงประสบปัญหาและข้อขัดแย้งต่าง ๆ บางครั้งเป็นวิกฤติทางรัฐธรรมนูญที่หาทางออกไม่ได้ เหตุส่วนหนึ่งเกิดจากการที่มี
ผู้ไม่นำพาหรือไม่นับถือยำเกรงกฎเกณฑ์การปกครองบ้านเมืองทุจริตฉ้อฉลหรือบิดเบือนอำนาจ หรือขาดความตระหนักสำนึกรับผิดชอบต่อประเทศชาติและประชาชน จนทำให้การบังคับใช้กฎหมายไม่เป็นผล ซึ่งจำต้องป้องกันและแก้ไขด้วยการปฏิรูปการศึกษาและการบังคับใช้กฎหมาย และเสริมสร้างความเข้มแข็งของระบบคุณธรรมและจริยธรรม แต่เหตุอีกส่วนหนึ่งเกิดจากกฎเกณฑ์ การเมือง
การปกครองที่ยังไม่เหมาะสมแก่สภาวการณ์บ้านเมืองและกาลสมัย ให้ความสำคัญแก่รูปแบบ และวิธีการยิ่งกว่าหลักการพื้นฐาน
ในระบอบประชาธิปไตยหรือไม่อาจนำกฎเกณฑ์ที่มีอยู่มาใช้แก่พฤติกรรมของบุคคลและสถานการณ์ในยามวิกฤติที่มีรูปแบบและวิธีการแตกต่างไปจากเดิมให้ได้ผล


​รัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย (ฉบับชั่วคราว) พุทธศักราช ๒๕๕๗ แก้ไขเพิ่มเติม (ฉบับที่ ๑) พุทธศักราช ๒๕๕๘
จึงได้บัญญัติให้มีคณะกรรมการร่างรัฐธรรมนูญมีหน้าที่ร่างรัฐธรรมนูญเพื่อใช้เป็นหลักในการปกครอง และเป็นแนวทางในการจัดทำกฎหมายประกอบรัฐธรรมนูญและกฎหมายอื่น โดยได้กำหนดกลไกเพื่อจัดระเบียบและสร้างความเข้มแข็งแก่การปกครองประเทศขึ้นใหม่
ด้วยการจัดโครงสร้างของหน้าที่และอำนาจขององค์กรต่าง ๆ
ตามรัฐธรรมนูญ และสัมพันธภาพระหว่างฝ่ายนิติบัญญัติกับ
ฝ่ายบริหารให้เหมาะสม การให้สถาบันศาลและองค์กรอิสระอื่น
ซึ่งมีหน้าที่ตรวจสอบการใช้อำนาจรัฐสามารถปฏิบัติหน้าที่ได้
อย่างมีประสิทธิภาพ สุจริต เที่ยงธรรมและมีส่วนในการป้องกันหรือแก้ไขวิกฤติของประเทศตามความจำเป็นและความเหมาะสม
การรับรอง ปกป้อง และคุ้มครองสิทธิเสรีภาพของปวงชนชาวไทยให้ชัดเจนและครอบคลุมอย่างกว้างขวางยิ่งขึ้น โดยถือว่าการมีสิทธิเสรีภาพเป็นหลักการจำกัดตัดสิทธิเสรีภาพเป็นข้อยกเว้น แต่การใช้
สิทธิเสรีภาพดังกล่าวต้องอยู่ภายใต้กฎเกณฑ์เพื่อคุ้มครองส่วนรวม การกำหนดให้รัฐมีหน้าที่ต่อประชาชนเช่นเดียวกับการให้ประชาชนมีหน้าที่ต่อรัฐ การวางกลไกป้องกัน ตรวจสอบ และขจัดการทุจริตและประพฤติมิชอบที่เข้มงวด เด็ดขาด เพื่อมิให้ผู้บริหารที่ปราศจากคุณธรรม จริยธรรม และธรรมาภิบาล เข้ามามีอำนาจในการปกครองบ้านเมืองหรือใช้อำนาจตามอำเภอใจ และการกำหนดมาตรการป้องกันและบริหารจัดการวิกฤติการณ์ของประเทศให้มีประสิทธิภาพยิ่งขึ้น ตลอดจน ได้กำหนดกลไกอื่น ๆ ตามแนวทางที่รัฐธรรมนูญแห่ง
ราชอาณาจักรไทย (ฉบับชั่วคราว) พุทธศักราช ๒๕๕๗ ระบุไว้
เพื่อใช้เป็นกรอบในการพัฒนาประเทศตามแนวนโยบายแห่งรัฐ
และยุทธศาสตร์ชาติซึ่งผู้เข้ามาบริหารประเทศแต่ละคณะจะได้กำหนดนโยบายและวิธีดำเนินการที่เหมาะสมต่อไป ทั้งยังสร้างกลไกในการปฏิรูปประเทศในด้านต่าง ๆ ที่สำคัญและจำเป็นอย่างร่วมมือร่วมใจกัน รวมตลอดทั้งการลดเงื่อนไขความขัดแย้งเพื่อให้ประเทศมีความสงบสุข
บนพื้นฐานของความรู้รักสามัคคีปรองดอง การจะดำเนินการในเรื่องเหล่านี้ให้ลุล่วงไปได้ จำต้องอาศัยความร่วมมือระหว่างประชาชนทุกภาคส่วนกับหน่วยงานทั้งหลายของรัฐตามแนวทางประชารัฐภายใต้กฎเกณฑ์ตามหลักการปกครองในระบอบประชาธิปไตยและประเพณีการปกครอง
ที่เหมาะสมกับสถานการณ์และลักษณะสังคมไทย หลักความสุจริต หลักสิทธิมนุษยชน และหลักธรรมาภิบาล อันจะทำให้สามารถขับเคลื่อนประเทศให้พัฒนาไปข้างหน้าได้อย่างเป็นขั้นตอน จนเกิดความมั่นคง มั่งคั่ง และยั่งยืน ทั้งในทางการเมือง การปกครอง เศรษฐกิจ และสังคม ตามระบอบประชาธิปไตยอันมีพระมหากษัตริย์ทรงเป็นประมุข
​ในการดำเนินการดังกล่าว คณะกรรมการร่างรัฐธรรมนูญ
ได้สร้างความรับรู้ความเข้าใจแก่ประชาชน ในหลักการและเหตุผลของบทบัญญัติต่าง ๆ เป็นระยะ ๆ เปิดโอกาสให้ประชาชนเข้าถึงร่างรัฐธรรมนูญและความหมายโดยผ่านทางสื่อต่าง ๆ อย่างกว้างขวาง และให้ประชาชนมีส่วนร่วมในการพัฒนาสารัตถะของร่างรัฐธรรมนูญด้วยการเสนอแนะข้อควรแก้ไขเพิ่มเติม เมื่อการจัดทำร่างรัฐธรรมนูญแล้วเสร็จ ก็ได้เผยแพร่ร่างรัฐธรรมนูญและคำอธิบายสาระสำคัญของร่างรัฐธรรมนูญโดยสรุปในลักษณะที่ประชาชนสามารถเข้าใจ
เนื้อหาสำคัญของร่างรัฐธรรมนูญได้โดยสะดวกและเป็นการทั่วไป และจัดให้มีการออกเสียงประชามติเพื่อให้ความเห็นชอบแก่
ร่างรัฐธรรมนูญทั้งฉบับ ในการนี้ สภานิติบัญญัติแห่งชาติได้มีมติเสนอประเด็นเพิ่มเติมอีกประเด็นหนึ่งเพื่อให้มีการออกเสียงประชามติในคราวเดียวกันด้วย การออกเสียงประชามติปรากฏผลว่า ประชาชนผู้มีสิทธิออกเสียงประชามติโดยคะแนนเสียงข้างมากของ
ผู้มาออกเสียงประชามติเห็นชอบกับร่างรัฐธรรมนูญและประเด็นเพิ่มเติมดังกล่าว คณะกรรมการร่างรัฐธรรมนูญจึงดำเนินการแก้ไขร่างรัฐธรรมนูญในส่วนที่เกี่ยวข้องให้สอดคล้องกับผลการออกเสียงประชามติในประเด็นเพิ่มเติม และได้ส่งให้ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญพิจารณาว่าเป็นการชอบด้วยผลการออกเสียงประชามติแล้วหรือไม่ ซึ่งต่อมาศาลรัฐธรรมนูญได้วินิจฉัยให้คณะกรรมการร่างรัฐธรรมนูญ
แก้ไขเพิ่มเติมข้อความบางส่วน และคณะกรรมการร่างรัฐธรรมนูญได้ดำเนินการแก้ไขตามคำวินิจฉัยของศาลรัฐธรรมนูญแล้ว นายกรัฐมนตรีจึงนำร่างรัฐธรรมนูญขึ้นทูลเกล้าทูลกระหม่อมถวาย ต่อมา รัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย (ฉบับชั่วคราว) พุทธศักราช ๒๕๕๗ แก้ไขเพิ่มเติม (ฉบับที่ ๔) พุทธศักราช ๒๕๖๐ บัญญัติให้นายกรัฐมนตรีขอรับพระราชทานร่างรัฐธรรมนูญนั้นคืนมา
แก้ไขเพิ่มเติมเฉพาะบางประเด็นได้ เมื่อดำเนินการแล้วเสร็จ นายกรัฐมนตรีจึงนำร่างรัฐธรรมนูญนั้นขึ้นทูลเกล้าทูลกระหม่อมถวายเพื่อทรงลงพระปรมาภิไธย ประกาศใช้เป็นรัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทยสืบไป ทรงพระราชดำริว่าสมควรพระราชทานพระราชานุมัติ
​จึงมีพระราชโองการดำรัสเหนือเกล้าเหนือกระหม่อม
ให้ตรารัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทยฉบับนี้ขึ้นไว้ ให้ใช้แทนรัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย (ฉบับชั่วคราว) พุทธศักราช ๒๕๕๗ ซึ่งได้ตราไว้ ณ วันที่ ๒๒ กรกฎาคม พุทธศักราช ๒๕๕๗ ตั้งแต่
วันประกาศนี้เป็นต้นไป
​ขอปวงชนชาวไทย จงมีความสมัครสโมสรเป็นเอกฉันท์
ในอันที่จะปฏิบัติตามและพิทักษ์รักษารัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทยนี้
เพื่อธำรงคงไว้ซึ่งระบอบประชาธิปไตยและอำนาจอธิปไตยของ
ปวงชนชาวไทย และนำมาซึ่งความผาสุกสิริสวัสดิ์พิพัฒนชัยมงคล อเนกศุภผลสกลเกียรติยศสถาพรแก่อาณาประชาราษฎรทั่วสยามรัฐสีมา สมดั่งพระราชปณิธานปรารถนาทุกประการ เทอญ

​May there be virtue. Today is the tenth day of the waxing moon in the fifth month of the year of
the Rooster under the lunar calendar, being Thursday,
the sixth day of April under the solar calendar,
in the 2560th year of the Buddhist Era.
​His Majesty King Maha Vajiralongkorn
Bodindradebayavarangkun is graciously pleased to
proclaim that the Prime Minister has respectfully informed that since PhrabatSomdet Phra Paramintharamaha Prajadhipok Phra Pokklao Chaoyuhua graciously granted
the Constitution of the Kingdom of Siam, B.E. 2475 (1932), Thailand has continuously and always maintained
the intention to adhere to a democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State. Even though Constitutions have been annulled, amended and promulgated on several occasions to suitably reorganise governance, there was still no stability or order due to various problems and conflicts. At times, those events degenerated into Constitutional crises which cannot be resolved. This was partially caused by there being persons ignoring or disobeying governance rules of the country, being corrupt and fraudulent, abusing power, and lacking a sense of responsibility towards the nation and the people, resulting in the ineffective enforcement of law. It is, therefore, necessary to prevent and rectify these matters by reforming education and law enforcement, and strengthening the system of merits and ethics.
Other causes are governance rules which are inappropriate to the situation of the country and the times,
the prioritisation of forms and procedures over basic principles of democracy, or the failure to effectively apply, during the crises, existing rules to individuals’ behaviours and situations, the forms and procedures of which differ from those of the past.
​The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2557 (2014) Amendment (No. 1), B.E. 2558 (2015) accordingly provides that there shall be a Constitution Drafting Committee to draft a Constitution to be used
as the principle of governance and as a guide for preparing organic laws and other laws by prescribing
new mechanisms to reform and strengthen the governance of the country. This is to be carried out by: appropriately restructuring the duties and powers of organs under
the Constitution and the relationship between the legislative and executive branches; enabling Court institutions and
other Independent Organs that have duties to scrutinise
the exercise of State powers to perform their duties efficiently, honestly and equitably, and to participate in preventing or solving national crises, as necessary and appropriate; guaranteeing, safeguarding and protecting Thai people’s rights and liberties more clearly and inclusively by holding
that the Thai people’s rights and liberties are the principle, while the restriction and limitation thereon are exceptions, provided that the exercise of such rights and liberties must be subject to the rules for protecting the public; prescribing the duties of the State towards people,
as well as requiring the people to have duties towards the State; establishing strict and absolute mechanisms to prevent, examine and eliminate dishonest act and wrongful conduct to prevent executives who lack moral virtue, ethics and good governance from ruling the country or using power arbitrarily; prescribing measures to prevent and manage crises in the country more efficiently;
and, prescribing other mechanisms in accordance with the direction specified by the Constitution of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2557 (2014). These are to be used as
a framework for developing the country, in line with
the directive principles of State policies and the National Strategy, from which each Administration shall prescribe
the appropriate policies and implementation. Additionally, this establishes mechanisms to work together to reform the country in various aspects that are important
and necessary, as well as to reduce the causes of conflict, so that the country can be at peace on the basis of unity and solidarity. The successful implementation of these matters demands cooperation among the people from all parts and all agencies of the State, in accordance with the direction of the Civil State, pursuant to the rules
under the principles of a democratic regime of government and constitutional conventions that are suited to
the situation and the nature of Thai society, the principles
of good faith, human rights and good governance.
This will in turn drive the country to progressively develop to become stable, prosperous and sustainable, politically, economically and socially, under the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.
​Pursuant to the foregoing undertakings,
the Constitution Drafting Committee has periodically imparted knowledge and understanding to the people
of the principles and rationale of provisions of the Draft Constitution, has provided the people opportunities to widely access to the Draft Constitution and its meaning through different media, and has involved the people
in the development of the essence of the Draft Constitution
through receiving recommendations on possible revisions. Once the preparation of the Draft Constitution was complete, copies of the Draft Constitution and a brief primer
were disseminated in a way which allowed the people to easily and generally understand the main provisions of the Draft Constitution, and a referendum was arranged to approve the entire Draft Constitution. In this regard,
the National Legislative Assembly also passed a resolution
introducing one additional issue to be put to vote
in referendum on the same occasion. The outcome of the referendum was such that people having the right to vote, by a majority of votes of the people voting in the referendum, approved such Draft Constitution and additional issue. The Constitution Drafting Committee accordingly revised the relevant parts of the Draft Constitution to be
in accordance with the outcome pertaining to
the additional issue of the referendum, and referred
the revision to the Constitutional Court for consideration
as to whether it is in conformity with the outcome of the referendum. The Constitutional Court thereafter rendered
a decision for the Constitution Drafting Committee to partially revise the texts. The Constitution Drafting Committee has made a revision according to the decision of
the Constitutional Court. Accordingly, the Prime Minister respectfully presented the Draft Constitution to the King. Thereafter, the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2557 Amendment (No. 4), B.E. 2560 (2017) provides that the Prime Minister may respectfully ask for the return of that Draft Constitution from the King
to make an amendment thereto on certain issues.
After the amendment is complete, the Prime Minister thereby respectfully presented the Draft Constitution to the King for signature and subsequent promulgation
as the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, and
the King deemed it expedient to grant His Royal assent.
​Be it, therefore, commanded by the King that
the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand be promulgated to replace, as from the date of its promulgation,
the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Interim), B.E. 2557 (2014) promulgated on the 22nd July B.E. 2557.
​May all Thai people unite in observing, protecting and upholding the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand in order to maintain the democratic regime of government
and the sovereign power derived from the Thai people, and to bring about happiness, prosperity and dignity to His Majesty’s subjects throughout the Kingdom according to the will of His Majesty in every respect.

Ideologies just got mixed into doctrinal basis ...

For my friends who are interested in the Evangelical Theological Society, please take a look at this important message from past president Stan Gundry, who, like me, is vitally interested in the continuing health of the Society. He has given me permission to copy it here.

WHENCE AND WHITHER ETS?
An Open Letter to the Members of ETS
Stanley N. Gundry
President of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1978

The following resolutions were adopted in the last business session of the 2015 national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society:
(1) We affirm that all persons are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess inherent dignity and worth.
(2) We affirm that marriage is the covenantal union of one man and one woman, for life.
(3) We affirm that Scripture teaches that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage as defined above. This excludes all other forms of sexual intimacy.
(4) We affirm that God created men and women, imbued with the distinct traits of manhood and womanhood, and that each is an unchangeable gift of God that constitutes personal identity.
In the immediate aftermath of this business session, many ETS members were deeply troubled that any ETS members would vote against these resolutions. The post-ETS blogs of a few ETS members and the comments of their followers expressed dismay that anyone who claims to be evangelical and subscribes to the Doctrinal Basis of the Society would cast a negative vote.
But there was also a significant minority that opposed and voted against these resolutions. These members were troubled that such resolutions would be introduced, that they were not ruled out of order or at least tabled, and that they were passed by a significant majority of those present and voting. I was among the minority that voted “Nay.”
Why? It is a question that deserves to be answered because I am convinced that the future of ETS depends on our repudiation of what happened in that session and that ETS members must realize that resolutions of this nature are not consistent with the nature of the Society. In fact, the issue at stake is whether or not ETS will remain committed to the original purpose for which ETS was formed. I have not taken even an informal poll of others who voted against the resolutions, but I have discussed the matter with enough members to give me confidence that many members agree that the future of ETS is at stake.
My history within ETS uniquely qualifies me to address the concerns these resolutions raise. I have been immersed in the culture and affairs of ETS since my student days in the 1950s and 1960s. I knew on a first-name basis many of the first-generation ETS members. I was taught by some of them. I have been a full member of the Society since about 1968. I have attended most national meetings since 1970, and in the 1970s I was an active participant in the Midwestern section of ETS, serving also as president of that section and on its leadership committee. Then in 1978 I served as the national president of ETS and planned the program for the 30th Annual Meeting of ETS in collaboration with Dr. Kenneth Kantzer, followed by serving the allotted time on the ETS Executive Committee. Relevant to the concerns at hand, my first-hand knowledge of the workings of ETS and its Constitution, most especially the Purpose and Doctrinal Basis of the Society as stated in the Constitution, and my acquaintance with many of the founders and first-generation members of ETS give me insight into their intentions in forming the Society.
So why did I vote against the resolutions? Because the resolutions went beyond the Doctrinal Basis of the Society and were inconsistent with the clearly stated Purpose of ETS. But I run ahead of myself and it is a bit more complicated than that. So let me start at the beginning, the resolutions themselves.
First, it is unfortunate that the resolutions were presented at the last business meeting and then discussed and voted on as a group. My understanding is that those responsible for the agenda did not anticipate that the resolutions would be controversial and so they were scheduled to be considered in the last business session. This was not inconsistent as such with the ETS Constitution or Bylaws, but in a case like this, members should have had advance warning of the nature of the resolutions and ample opportunity to discuss them among themselves and on the floor of the business meeting. Further, many members had already left the conference or were absent for other reasons. Thus, members could not deliberately consider in advance whether or not voting on such resolutions was even consistent with the Purpose of ETS; and, given the time constraints of the program, there was not sufficient time to debate the merits of the individual resolutions and to vote up or down on each one.
The resolutions were so poorly stated that they needed such careful consideration. For instance, the second resolution ignored the question of biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage. And given the diversity of views on divorce and remarriage within ETS, is this really a question on which ETS should be taking a position even in the form of a resolution? What about the third resolution? Viewed superficially, who could possibly object to that resolution? But looked at more closely, “sexual intimacy” and “all other forms of sexual intimacy” are squishy descriptors. Are they intended to refer to physical sexual intimacy, and if so, are holding hands, kissing, or hugging forbidden? My fundamentalist and separatist father would have thought so, but what about the membership of ETS? Would we have a consensus on that question?
And what about the fourth resolution affirming “distinct traits of manhood and womanhood”? While I suspect all members of ETS (even those of us who self-identify as biblical egalitarians) believe that men and women in many respects are complementary to one another, many of us also believe that the terms “manhood” and “womanhood” are reifications of socially and culturally conditioned patterns of behavior more than they are descriptors of biblically supported male and female characteristics. Rather than being biblically supported, the terms tend to refer to stereotypical lists of alleged gender characteristics to which men and women are expected to conform. Even self-avowed complementarians have no consensus on what constitutes “manhood and womanhood,” so why would a scholarly society like ETS that includes both complementarians and egalitarians even take such a resolution seriously?
So I return to the opening statement of this first point—scheduling the resolutions for consideration as a group at the second business meeting without prior notice meant there was not adequate time to consider and debate the merits and wording of the resolutions and it made it impossible to carefully consider whether or not voting on such resolutions was even consistent with the Purpose of ETS.
Second, this broader issue needs to be considered by the Society. Is it even appropriate for resolutions to be introduced, debated, and voted on that go beyond the Doctrinal Basis and officially stated Purpose of the Society? I believe the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No!” Members tend to forget that ETS was never intended to have a doctrinal statement to which members had to subscribe. We have a “Doctrinal Basis,” one that originally had one affirmation: The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. Years later, the Trinitarian statement was added to the Doctrinal Basis out of concern that anti-Trinitarians such as Jehovah’s Witnesses might successfully claim membership in ETS. But even with that addition, it remains a Doctrinal Basis, not a doctrinal statement. Some members seem not to understand and/or remember the significance of the fact that we function as a scholarly society with a Doctrinal Basis. But even many who remember that we have a Doctrinal Basis all too easily and sloppily refer to it using the phrases “doctrinal basis” and “doctrinal statement” interchangeably, suggesting they do not really understand (or perhaps accept) the significance of the distinction. But this distinction is at the very heart and Purpose of ETS. A bit of historical context will be useful here.
When ETS was formed in 1949, evangelical biblical and theological scholarship was just beginning to emerge from its decline in the dark days of the modernist-fundamentalist debate and the loss of so many mainline denominations and associated colleges, seminaries, and missionary agencies to the takeover of these institutions by theological liberals. For at least fifteen or twenty years, fundamentalists and evangelicals at the local church and grassroots level had a profound suspicion of serious biblical and theological scholarship. But in the mid and late 1940s, this began to change as scholars who were willing to self-identify as fundamentalists (in the classic meaning of that term) and/or evangelical began to find each other, come together, and realize that in spite of all that divided them, they held one thing in common—the Bible and the Bible alone in its entirety is God’s Word written, it speaks truthfully on whatever it intends to say and teach, and hence it is the only rule for Christian faith and practice. Eventually in 1949 many of the fundamentalist and evangelical scholars who shared this conviction agreed there was a need for a scholarly society where members shared the same basis on which conservative scholarship and research should be discussed and debated. On that Doctrinal Basis, they formed the Evangelical Theological Society.
It is easy to forget, or perhaps many ETS members do not know, how deep and sometimes rancorous the divisions were that otherwise separated these same scholars. These divisions ranged from matters of church polity to biblical hermeneutics to the various loci of systematic theology. In fact, dispensational and amillennial theologians were accustomed to trading charges that the hermeneutical methods and theological systems of the other undermined the authority of Scripture. Scholars who practiced secondary separation risked their reputations if they joined with other evangelical scholars who practiced only primary separation or who were inclusivists. At least four of the ETS presidents in the first twenty years of the society would have been sympathetic to what is now known as biblical egalitarianism, a matter over which ETS members today have profound disagreements. Yet these scholars came together in ETS as did Pentecostals and cessationists, believer-immersionists and paedo-sprinklers, Arminians and Wesleyans and Reformed and Lutheran, as well as those who held to congregational, or presbyterial, or episcopal church polity.
A quick scan of the listing of ETS presidents over the past sixty-seven years and the institutions they represented makes the same point. Schools represented range from Wycliffe College, to Dallas Theological Seminary, to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, to Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, to Moody Bible Institute. The theological spectrum represented by ETS presidents is also quite remarkable. As I look at the list I can identify at least twelve presidents associated with one of five or six varieties of Presbyterian and Reformed communions, thirteen who were dispensationalists, five who were covenant premillennialists, one Pentecostal, three Wesleyans, and twelve sympathetic with biblical egalitarianism.
Throughout its history, ETS has been a demonstration of the Purpose for which ETS was formed: The Purpose of the Society shall be to foster conservative biblical scholarship by providing a medium for the oral exchange and written expression of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures.
So I return to the opening question and statement of my second point—“Is it even appropriate for resolutions to be introduced, debated, and voted on that go beyond the Doctrinal Basis and officially stated Purpose of the Society?” I believe the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No!” Why? Because such resolutions are inconsistent with the Purpose of ETS and the reason why we have a Doctrinal Basis and not a doctrinal statement.
Third, the introduction and passage of the four-fold resolution package and the internet conversations following the 67th Annual Meeting are symptomatic of the desire of some ETS members to move the Society in the direction of precise, doctrinal, and interpretive clarity and definition, ideally in the form of a doctrinal statement and other “position statements.” I am trained not only as a theologian but as a church historian; consequently I am inclined to be skeptical of conspiracy theories unless there is compelling evidence. Nevertheless, based on the evidence, some of us are now wondering if there is a conspiracy within ETS to:
1) ease out biblical egalitarians,
2) exclude women from the leadership of ETS,
3) let qualified women scholars know they are not part of “the old boys network,”
4) shut down discussion of contentious ethical and theological issues,
5) marginalize those who do not come out on the “right side” of those issues,
6) “pack” the nominating committee so as to get their compatriots in the positions of leadership,
7) question the evangelical and inerrantist bona fides of those who ask hard questions and come up with answers that most of us are not persuaded by, and
8) propose and pass a poorly framed set of four resolutions that makes the Society sound more like the Family Research Council or the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood than the intentionally diverse “medium for the oral and written expressions of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures” as stated in the ETS Purpose statement.
Lest I be misunderstood, I do believe that theological boundaries are important within the church and its institutions, and as an evangelical Protestant, I believe it is appropriate for churches and parachurch organizations to draw those boundary lines, based on their understanding of Scripture. But ETS is not a church and it was formed to serve a clearly defined purpose. It is significant that it takes an 80% majority vote to amend only three things in the ETS constitution—the Doctrinal Basis, the Society’s Purpose, and the requirement for an 80% majority to amend the first two items. The founders of our Society could hardly have made it clearer that they regarded the Purpose and Doctrinal Basis of ETS to be essential to the organization they were creating.
Why is it important to guard the integrity of the original Purpose and Basis of ETS? I will answer with another question. What better forum is there for collegial discussion and debate of complementarianism and egalitarianism, open theism and classical theism and all points in between, eschatology, the “new perspective” on Paul, and yes, even the question of whether same-sex “marriages” can be defended biblically, than a forum where we have agreed to appeal to the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice, the Bible, God’s Word written?
Copyright © 2016 by Stanley N. Gundry. Used by permission. All rights reserved.