A ruling group defends a request to change the charter
Chousak Sirinil, the PM’s workplace minister, downplayed criticism on a Pheu Thai Party-sponsored contract amendment plan involving ethical standards for social postholders on Monday, saying it would not violate the charter’s underlying principles against corruption.
The ruling group’s proposal to change the charter section by section addresses six issues, including morality for government ministers who are required to be glaringly truthful and not have committed any serious ethics offenses against political officeholders, according to Section 160 of the contract.
The Constitutional Court’s elimination of Srettha Thavisin as prime minister in violation of his moral decision to nominate past convict Pichit Chuenban as a cabinet minister appears to be the catalyst for the decision.
Criticism of the plan has, however, been fueled by those who contend that the proposed constitutional amendments may violate the organization’s objectives. The ruling party has argued that all it wants to do is understand what constitutes moral justifications for prosecuting open officeholders.
” The proposal does n’t eliminate ethical standards but clearly defines them to prevent problems for the national administration”, he said.
The public is aware of how the situation affects the formation of the government. They are n’t to be abolished.
However, distinct standards are required to evaluate social behavior.
The proposed alterations will not have voluntary results before the 2017 contract was promulgated, he added.
On October 1, deputy prime minister Phumtham Wechayachai and coalition partners will discuss the proposed contract amendments, the status of the contract modify process, and a possible schedule for a contract rewrite referendum.
According to Mr. Chousak, the main opposition People’s Party and the Pheu Thai Party have already submitted independent proposals to congress to amend the contract section by section.
When questioned if the government would speak to senators about the matter because contract amendments require the approval of the Upper House, he replied that it would.
Senator Nantana Nantavaropas stated on Monday that the latest contract contains a number of shortcomings that need to be addressed.
If her group you resolve those issues before a new contract is drafted, she will assuredly support the amendments.
When asked about concerns that the proposed adjustments are self-serving and serve a conflict of interest, the lawmaker claimed members of the profession should set the code of conduct.
She argued that the Constitutional Court’s current social standards for political politicians are unclear and subject to interpretation, and that politicians should therefore be updated.
” It’s not about a conflict of interest. Ethics requirements must be clearly defined and indicate which behaviors are unacceptable if they are to be incorporated into the rules. And they should n’t cover behaviour from 20 years ago,” she said.
However, Sonthiya Sawatdee, a former adviser to the House committee on laws, justice, and people right, on Monday submitted a petition to Parliament President Wan Muhamad Noor Matha, asking him not to place the policy article ideas on the plan.
According to him, Section 114’s proposed amendments, initiated by the ruling party and the main opposition party, are not urgently needed and constitute a conflict of interest.
Former senator, Somchai Swangkarn, wrote on Facebook that the ruling party’s charter amendment proposal is unlikely to be for the public benefit but rather for politicians being investigated.
He said if the amendments, which require one-third of the Senate’s support, sail through parliament, the MPs and senators cannot be relied upon, and the country may enter another political crisis.
Mr. Wan stated that the legal affairs team of the parliament is currently reviewing the proposal for charter amendments before they are put on the agenda.
He said the parliament would take into account and make decisions, making sure that changes were made in the public’s best interest and that the law was applied fairly. He did, however, say that he would not comment on the content of the amendment proposals.