Next time, when the Pheu Thai Party was forming a partnership state, it made a promise to create a people’s contract that would require an elected contract writing assembly and a public referendum, but maintain the charter in line with Thailand’s constitutional monarchy.
Despite being in authority for over seven decades, attempts to alter the 2017 contract– seen by some as a relic of the 2014 revolution– have made no progress.
The Pheu Thai authorities spent its first four weeks researching the constitutional amendments needed for a vote.
Phumtham Wechayachai, the commerce minister, oversaw this method, with two sub-committees set up to evaluate public opinion on the subject and create recommendations for a referendum.
His board decided that three referenda may be legally safer before the end of 2023.
After Pheu Thai list-MP Chusak Sirinil submitted a bill to alter the constitutional clause governing amendments to parliament in January, the problem was not forwarded to the case for consideration until last week.
The ruling group claimed that the MPs have complete authority to amend the contract.
The bill was never put on the political agenda because it was perceived as an attempt to produce a fresh charter, which required a second referendum to get held.
The House then voted to ask the Constitutional Court to rule on this issue and how many referendums on the need to amend the charter.
In the middle of April, the jury rejected the plea, on the ground that it already ruled on the subject and this issue had nothing to do with legislature’s range of power.
A contract update could not be carried out without a first-time referendum, the court had earlier said.
A previous, favorable referendum vote is required, according to the court, to amend significant portions of the charter or to change it entirely. Yet, the ruling did no spell out how many elections are needed.
Nikorn: New mandate in ‘ three years ‘
The election problem
The sub-panel’s leader, Nikorn Chamnong, who gathers opinions on the subject, told the Bangkok Post that the goal of the contract article is to democratize it without changing Pages 1 and 2, respectively.
However, senators and MPs favor their engagement, with different opinions on how many referenda are needed. Thus, two post- sections were established to ensure inclusivity.
One-third of the Senate and 20 % of the opposition camp must support a law article.
Following the prosecutor’s decision, earlier attempts to change the contract were made during the Prayut administration, so the petition asking the court to decide how many rounds of parliaments should be conducted to avoid legal ramifications was filed.
However, now that the judge has dismissed the petition, the choice for the election has shifted back to the government, said Mr Nikorn, a Chartthaipattana Party record MP.
When the government endorses the Phumtham committee’s suggestions, the problem will be forwarded to the Election Commission which is required to continue within 90 days, he said.
Last week, the cabinet came to an agreement in principle regarding the three-referenda proposal and the question that the Phumtham committee had posed.
The first will ask voters to vote no to changing Chapters 1 and 2 without modifying the original charter.
Thailand is described in Chapter 1 as a single, unbroken, democratic kingdom with the King as head of state, while Chapter 2 includes provisions relating to royal prerogatives.
Section 256 will be amended to allow the creation of a new charter by a charter drafting assembly, which will be put up for a second referendum if the majority of voters approve of the charter rewrite.
Once a new charter is produced, the government will hold a third referendum, asking voters to decide whether it should be adopted.
However, Mr Nikorn said the first referendum faces an obstacle due to the “double majority” rule, which requires more than 50 % of eligible voters to participate in a referendum.
The charter rewrite process is anticipated to start fresh by amending the referendum law to end the “double majority” rule, he said. If the first referendum rejects the charter rewrite, there will be four rounds.
He expressed confidence that the entire charter rewrite process can be finished before the current House’s three-year term expires.
The first referendum must be held as soon as possible. Even if the referendum is held in accordance with the current law, I believe there is a chance that it will be passed if we work diligently to educate the public about the advantages the new charter will bring. As far as I’m concerned, the majority wants a new charter”, he said.
The first referendum is anticipated to take place this year or next, according to Mr. Nikorn, with the charter drafting assembly expected to form before 2026.
No later than a year after the charter drafting assembly was established, a draft charter is anticipated to be created.
Nutthawut: Govt panels’ redundant’
Delay tactics
A charter rewrite was included on the policy platforms of several parties in the government and opposition camps, according to Nutthawut Buaprathum, a list-member of the main opposition Move Forward Party ( MFP).
He claimed that the majority of these parties have considered the charter amendment process and agreed on three things: a new charter should be created by an elected charterdrafting body, the entire 2017 charter should be available for vote, and a new charter must be approved in a referendum.
However, the referendum issue has been met with a roadblock as a result of the amendment process, which has prompted the government to set up committees to gather information. The MFP opted not to join these committees, deeming them redundant.
Mr. Nutthawut claimed that the committees have developed a proposal but have not yet released full reports, which raises questions about the government’s commitment to moving forward with the proposed amendment.
He argued that the government should release the reports and work with parliament to have the amendment bills on the agenda.
We’ve already stated before that the court’s decision does not prevent the House from reexamining any proposed charter amendments. The House Speaker should speak with the government, he said, because the House has the authority to include the amendment bill on the agenda. He stated that he doubts the government would take his advice seriously, adding that it is still to be seen if it has the political will to proceed.
If the process begins soon enough, he said, the new charter could be put into effect in 2027 before the next general election.
The new charter may not be realized in the current House if the process is n’t started this year. We really do n’t know how the political landscape will have changed. This is a test of the government’s political will”, he said.