Constitutional amendment has returned as a contentious political issue, underscoring that the country's fundamental law remains a major priority for all parties. Despite various governments declaring it as policy, political limitations, legal constraints, and societal disagreements have prevented constitutional amendments from ever reaching completion. Most recently, after the cabinet rejected a pending draft amendment in parliament, Bhumjaithai Party prepared to submit its own new version for consideration. Pheu Thai, which promised to push for constitutional reform since its campaign period, is now mobilizing. The party is organizing a working committee meeting with key leaders Pongsathorn Thepkachana and Jaturon Chayaeng to determine the path forward, with two main focal points. The first concerns whether to adopt Pheu Thai's original draft, which stipulates that each province selects members of the constitutional drafting assembly before parliament conducts a second round of selection. This approach was designed to sidestep constitutional court objections, as it avoids direct election of assembly members while allowing public participation in drafting the country's new framework. The second key issue involves the political dynamics in parliament, as proposing a constitutional amendment requires signatures from at least one-fifth of all parliamentarians. With only 74 votes, Pheu Thai must rely on cooperation from both opposition and coalition parties. This represents a critical test of whether government and opposition can transcend political divides to address constitutional reform as a shared national agenda. If all sides continue viewing the constitution as a political game rather than a common national concern, the chances of reaching a successful conclusion may be slim. Ultimately, constitutional amendment is not merely a matter for parliamentarians but concerns all citizens, since the constitution determines the country's long-term future. It remains to be seen whether this new round will produce tangible change or merely repeat the failed attempts of the past.

BANGKOK — Authorities have identified two of the eight people killed in the deadly train-bus collision near Makkasan Airport Rail Link station, as officials continue efforts to locate relatives of the remaining victims.

The crash occurred on 16 May when a freight train slammed into an air-conditioned public bus operating on route 23 between Bang Na and Thewet. The collision triggered a major fire that engulfed the bus.

The incident left eight people dead and more than 30 injured.

Officials on 17 May released the names of two confirmed victims as 34-year-old Teekha Teekha-Utmakorn and 57-year-old Tiam Phuangyod.

The remaining six victims are still undergoing forensic identification at the Police General Hospital's Institute of Forensic Medicine.

Authorities have also appealed for relatives of missing passengers to urgently contact officials if they believe family members may have been travelling on the bus and remain unaccounted for.

A disaster assistance centre has been set up beneath Makkasan Airport Rail Link station in Ratchathewi district.

Of the 33 injured victims admitted to hospital, 15 have since been discharged while 18 remain under medical treatment.

Thailand has experienced many major popular uprisings, but these have never been formally recorded in official history because authorities did not want future generations to learn from them or be inspired to resist. Events like October 14, 1973 were momentous, yet citizens have had to record their own history.

This May brings to mind another popular struggle that those in power have tried to make people forget. May 19, 2010 holds tremendous significance in people's history—the day the military fully dispersed the red-shirt gathering at Ratchaprasong intersection.

Sixteen years ago on May 19, after clearing the Ratchaprasong stage, red-shirt leaders surrendered to police and were detained. The protesters dispersed. Yet that night, gunfire erupted against people seeking refuge in Pathumwan Temple near Ratchaprasong, killing 6 more people.

The red-shirt protests began on March 12, 2010, demanding that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva dissolve parliament, as he had come to power through military negotiations rather than electoral victory. The government took a hardline stance. By April 10, gunfire erupted as soldiers attempted to disperse the gathering, killing approximately 20 people that night. From then until May 19, real weapons and sniper units were deployed to disperse the protests.

In total, 99 people died between April 10 and May 19, 2010. Every May 19, people gather to commemorate the 99 deaths of that year. Even after the protests were dispersed, state officials remained suspicious of thousands sheltering in Pathumwan Temple. Military units fired from the elevated BTS skytrain track toward the temple—footage clearly shows one-sided gunfire into the temple, killing 6 more people.

Beyond those six deaths on the night of May 19, the 99-death incident is filled with heartbreaking stories. Each year on May 15, people visit Ratchaprasong to remember "Choe," a 17-year-old boy shot by officials, who lay bleeding as he gradually died because no one could help him amid continuing gunfire.

On May 13, during the same events, Red Shirt military officer Lt. Kattiya Sawasdipol, a serving officer who had joined the red-shirts, was shot in an ambush in front of media at Sala Daeng intersection—another incident people remember, with lingering questions: Why has the military never pursued justice for a high-ranking officer's assassination?

From April 10 to May 19, 2010, no one has forgotten the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's legacy. The case has not expired. People will continue demanding justice to the fullest extent possible.

World No. 2 badminton singles player View Kulvuthi opened up after losing to Anders Antonsen in the men's singles final of the Toyota Thailand Open 2026. Kulvuthi faced a rematch with Denmark's world No. 3 Antonsen in this tournament's final, the same player he lost to 1-2 in last year's championship, missing out on defending his title this year. The 25-year-old badminton player acknowledged that his opponent had many advantages today, particularly in playing aggressively at the net, and apologized to fans for not successfully defending his championship.

"Playing at home comes with pressure. I wanted to defend the championship—playing in Thailand is an opportunity to perform at my best, but today I couldn't pull it off. I want to thank the fans and apologize for not being able to defend and win the championship in my own country," Kulvuthi said. "Antonsen changed the game in the second match. He came up and pressured at the net, and in the second set we were playing downwind with easy scoring opportunities or giving him chances. We couldn't handle that pressure. We need to go back and learn more.

"We have to give him credit today—he played well in both his game style and problem-solving. He performed much better than us, which is fitting because he's top-level. But we still need to keep learning. If we encounter situations like this and still can't solve them, while he can adjust his game, that's the difference. Today was a pretty good match—both of us fought hard, but he did it better than me. Obviously the winner performs better.

"The main lesson today is that our net game fell short. He came to the net while we weren't brave enough. His determination was obviously fitting for a champion. When we lack that determination, it becomes a disadvantage down the stretch.

"In the next two tournaments, I'll play with full effort because my main goals this year are winning the World Championship and the Asian Games. For the remaining tournaments I compete in, I'll try to perform well and gain experience. I want to thank the fans and apologize that I couldn't defend and win the championship in my home country. I hope that next year I'll come back stronger, and I hope to see the fans supporting me and all Thai athletes."

On May 17, 2026, Facebook user Noo Pang Pang posted seeking fairness after her mother was injured on a minibus. As her mother was preparing to get off the bus and stood up to collect her belongings, the bus made a sharp turn at that exact moment, causing her to lose balance and strike her head against the bus window, cracking it severely. Despite the injury, the bus conductor did not immediately stop the vehicle or seek medical help. Instead, the bus conductor approached and informed the mother that she would have to pay 4,300 baht for the damaged window, claiming it was the passenger's carelessness.

The mother called her daughter to report the incident, and the daughter could hear the driver saying she was negligent and must pay 4,300 baht for the broken window. The bus returned to the garage, and the daughter had to arrive to settle the damage payment before medical treatment could proceed. When the insurance representative arrived, they told the daughter that according to the bus company's regulations, they were obligated to transport her to the hospital. However, the insurance representative later requested assistance with the glass replacement cost, saying the bus company would not take responsibility and the driver would have to cover it personally. The driver asked for 2,000 baht assistance, but the daughter insisted on taking her mother to a doctor first.

The bus company designated Bang Pakong Hospital 1 as the treatment facility. Upon arrival, hospital staff asked if the bus driver or company representative would be present, and since they were not, the daughter had to provide advance payment. After X-rays revealed no fractures, the mother was diagnosed with bruising and contusions. She complained of dizziness and vomiting, describing the experience as distressing—injured on one hand and financially burdened on the other due to the bus operator's lack of proper care and prioritization of damage compensation over medical assistance.

A blind dog refuses to be defeated and continues his daily duty of fetching the newspaper for his owner every morning. American Brinn Fussell shared an inspiring story about Mason, a 12-year-old Golden Retriever, who despite losing both his eyes, continues his daily routine with the same dedication. Brinn explained that the family adopted Mason as a puppy, and he grew into a gentle, helpful dog who loved assisting the household.

Mason's most important daily task was retrieving the newspaper from outside each morning and bringing it back for the family to read, rain or shine. He took pride in completing this duty successfully. However, as Mason aged, his vision deteriorated significantly. He began colliding with furniture and showed hesitation when walking. After being diagnosed with advanced glaucoma, the family made the difficult decision to have both his eyes surgically removed to prevent his suffering.

The family initially worried that Mason would struggle to adapt to life in darkness, but they were pleasantly surprised. When they took Mason to the front yard, he used his remarkable sense of smell and 12 years of memories to accurately locate and retrieve the newspaper. The family noted that they always place the newspaper in the same spot, which helped Mason gradually rebuild his confidence.

Today, Mason continues his morning newspaper delivery routine faithfully, and despite his complete blindness, the beloved dog remains as cheerful and spirited as he was as a puppy.