A contract shift meander
Legislators who have to lift the vote issue are faced with a number of specialized difficulties because the increasingly complex business of getting it resolved.
The costs to alter the referendum law has made little progress in recent weeks, which has caused some observers to feel uneasy about the possibility that it won’t become law.
The Senate has a clear advantage over the House in pushing its act act plan, which adds insult to injury.
The foundation of the charter overhaul is the bill to rewrite the referendum law, which is the main opposition party’s main opposition party ( PP ) and the ruling Pheu Thai Party ( PP ) support.
In the 500-seat legislature, the two largest events have more than 300 seats, which is more than enough to pass any law they support.
Before the Senate decided to undo what the House had agreed, things appeared to be easy with the vote bill.
The Referendum Act’s dual majority rule, which specifies two circumstances, applies in this instance. Second, more than 50 % of eligible voters may have taken part in the election, and the majority of those who cast their ballots must approve it.
Pheu Thai and the PP want a simple lot law to replace the condition, which guarantees that a winning voting of any length is deemed appropriate.
The Senate, but, argued the basic bulk rule has no place in elections, which are called to decide on federal issues of greatest importance. The club needs to be set higher, according to the Upper House.
The amendment bill was presented to a mutual MP-Senate committee to find a solution as both Houses stood their ground, which some feared would put the current administration’s term on hold.
When two MP people sat up and joined the Senate in a ballot to deploy senator Pol Maj Gen Chattrawat Saengpet as the combined committee chairman, the 28-member panel, which consisted of 14 people from each room, raised brow.
According to a cause, being chair allows the Senate to dominate discussions. Any for dominance is detrimental to the joint panel, which has begun to split up.
Nikorn Chamnong, director of the mutual commission, adamant about resolving the differences between the Members and senators regarding the vote rules, he proposed the idea of a middle path that he believed would be well received by lawmakers from both chambers.
Mr. Nikorn suggested a “one and a half” lot rule, in which the activity is carried over by more than 50 % of electorates in a referendum but does not always need to be supported by a lot.
He defended the solution as much as he could, claiming that it had been considered and included in a statement on contract modifications that the government had examined back in April.
” I actually want a bargain to get reached. The ruling article bill needs to be abandoned.
” Each area is entitled to their causes. He made a agreement, saying that there should be no reason to worry that a legal article might be impossible to implement.
But, list MP Prayut Siripanich, who represents Pheu Thai in the mutual commission, disagreed with the” one and a half “proposal, saying it is, in fact, almost parallel to the double majority rule.
Pheu Thai claims that the individual lot principle was the better choice. He downplayed calls for a bargain, claiming that this was the only way to successfully drive for a policy amendment.
” I don’t believe we may jump to conclusions.
” This is not about being angry. However, the former lawmaker claimed that it is not the appropriate reasoning to try to change a law.
But, Witthaya Kaewparadai, even a member of the mutual board, threw his support behind at least half of eligible voters participating in a vote first, saying then, it would not be considered a vote.
” A referendum is important, and the number of participants must be large enough, which by international standards, is ]at least ] half]the eligible voters ]. For instance, if there are 42 million eligible voters, 21 million must participate, and the majority of those who turned up need to support the candidate’s majority.
In the end, the list MP from the United Thai Nation, a coalition parner, argued that changing the charter or the referendum laws should not be viewed as a priority.
Most people were undecided about whether or not the charter was to be revised or a referendum would be held.
According to Mr. Witthaya, it is the politicians who are all stoked about developing the method that makes it as simple as possible to pass a referendum in as little time as possible and then correct the charter.
A categorical denial
If the plot involved no alleged connection to a political heavyweight, Saraburi’s agriculture and cooperatives ministry’s actions against a resort there might have been hidden from the media.
Prawit: ‘ I’ve done nothing wrong’
As soon as it became clear who the powerful politician at the center of the conflict was, observers began to debate whether the ministry’s action was a legitimate crackdown on land grabs by powerful individuals or a plot of political retaliation.
According to media reports, the disputed resort and farm, Phu Nub Dao, is situated on a 32-rai pot in Muak Lek district. The Agricultural Land Reform Office ( Alro ) began an investigation into it in late May when former PPRP secretary-general Capt. Thamanat Prompow served as agriculture minister.
Three Alro officials are accused of corruption as a result of the investigation, and they have been linked to shady business dealings related to the land purchase. An unnamed woman who is said to be closely connected to a well-known politician received a money transfer worth about 10 million baht.
Alro has demanded that the structures and buildings be destroyed to ensure that the land is used in accordance with the Sor Por Kor land reform laws ‘ intended use.
After a report on the potential seizure of assets allegedly related to a romantically linked politician, which involved a resort located on the Sor Por Kor land, the scandal grew even more troubling.
Thanadon Suwannarit, an adviser to the agriculture minister, and Pol Maj Gen Charoonkiat Pankaew, deputy commissioner of the Central Investigation Bureau ( CIB ), confirmed that the” sweetheart” of a former deputy prime minister was implicated in the land encroachment investigation.
Gen. Prawit Wongsuwon, the leader of the Palang Pracharath Party ( PPRP ), is frequently portrayed as the illustrious politician in question.
Agriculture and Cooperatives Minister Narumon Pinyosinwat vowed tough action against anyone who eluded the Sor Por Kor land after the scandal broke, saying that no one would be spared.
When asked what would happen if Gen Prawit was implicated, she replied:” Anyone who violates the law and if the land involves Sor Por Kor land under the ministry’s supervision, it must be returned so that it can be re-distributed rightfully to farmers.”
Gen Prawit, meanwhile, handled a Government House reporter’s question on the scandal in his usual manner.
In a phone interview, Gen Prawit said:” No, nothing. I have done nothing wrong. When questioned about the report, he suggested that a close female associate of his might be involved in the land grab at Sor Por Kor.
The PPRP leader responded,” What? When asked if he was thinking about issuing a statement to address the rumor further?” ” and hung up the telephone. He did not answer a follow-up phone call.
Observers are unsure whether the investigation into Phu Nub Dao is an attempt to settle political scores because of the political conflict between Gen Prawit and Capt Thamanat.
Ms Narumon, leader of the Kla Dharma Party, is said to be a close ally of Capt Thamanat, and both are known to be close since they served in the Prayut Chan-o-cha cabinet together.
During the formation of the Paetongtarn Shinawatra administration, Capt. Thamanat, a trusted associate of Gen. Prawit, announced he had cut ties with a figure he genuinely respected.
He disbanded with about 20 PPRP MPs, and the Thamanat-led group was given three seats in the Paetongtarn cabinet, with Mr. Thanadon, a well-known close aide to Capt. Thamanat, serving as her advisor.
The Political and Public Policy Analysis Institute director Thanaporn Sriyakul stated that the CIB is now in charge of the land dispute, and that it will look into whether there is a connection to the former deputy prime minister.
Police must proceed with the case and decide whether they have enough evidence to bring charges, he said, while those questioned have the right to press charges against themselves.
He argued that if the land grab controversy were just a political vendetta, the general public would lose nothing.
The issue may end up being of no real benefit to the public at the end of the day because of the high-profile police officer handling the case and the way politicians are jumping on the bandwagon, said Mr. Thanaporn.