THE Citizens Constitutional Forum believes since it is difficult for constitution makers to anticipate every future possibility, the amendment process in the Constitution must be addressed.
"At the very least, there must be an easier method to amend uncontroversial parts of the Constitution or it risks trapping future governments in unforeseen problems," CCF said in its analysis of the new Constitution.
It said the preamble and non-negotiable principles were intended to direct what the provisions of the Constitution seek to achieve and so provide the fundamental basis for the Constitution.
"Amendments to ensure that these goals and principles are reflected are within the scope of a reasonable interpretation of Section 161.
"Of course these principles are already partially reflected in the preamble.
"To the extent that they are not, the preamble should ideally be amended to reflect the fact that the Constitution seeks to give effect to them."
"The Constitution has succeeded in realising some of the non-negotiable principles concerning a secular State, proportional representation and a voting age of 18 years.
"But others have, to varying degrees, not been met."
The CCF said in its analysis that amendments to give full effect to the Constitution could be developed by reference to at least three sets of criteria.
It says the criteria is:
* the internal consistency of the Constitution itself, so that amendments can be made where there are obvious gaps or contradictions that restrict the obvious intent of the provisions being given full effect;
* the preamble of the Constitution which sets out its key goals and values; and
* the government's own set of purposes and non-negotiable principles for the Constitution.