The vote is, without a doubt, intertwined with the death of the legal article.
But, as the time pass, it becomes increasingly obvious that people are no longer supportive of a contract update.
This is a significant improvement over the first time when the majority of social events drew legal amendment as part of their campaign pledges last year.
The People’s Party ( PP ), which was formerly the Move Forward Party ( MFP), made the most of the constitution’s proposed amendments in an effort to challenge the status quo.
The MFP listed campaign pledges that included the abolishment of separate bodies, such as the Constitutional Court, as well as those that it held accountable for the breakdown of its president, the Future Forward Party, due to a loan from Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, the party’s leader.
Additionally, the group desired unlimited access to the constitution’s complete revision process.
Nevertheless, the MFP wanted to touch the arches of the contract, especially chapters 1 and 2 of the 2017 law. Chapters 1 and 2 establish the King as the head of state and determine Thailand as a single, unbroken, political nation. Chapter 2, however, outlines royal privileges.
The 2017 contract was promulgated by the National Council for Peace and Order, which installed Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha as leading in the midst of the May 22, 2014 revolution, which toppled the Pheu Thai-led management.
Obviously, Pheu Thai was on table, as it views the law as a relic of the dictatorship.
As long as the problems slated for the update were n’t contentious, conservative parties and those who supported the NCPO were likely to back the article force.
Since the Srettha Thavisin government came to power, a political source reported that several parties, excluding PP, have ceased to support a charter rewrite despite MFP saying it will not reverse the decision to support the stability majoreste law amendment, which it had insisted is non-negotiable.
The push for a law amendment, though, was not to be dismissed because it was a campaign promise that the PP and Pheu Thai both pledged to vehemently do. The government is now required to fulfill the vow, which was already made in congress.
The MFP paid the price when the Constitutional Court found it guilty of supporting the constitutional king through its campaign for the stability majoreste law amendment, a practice that could lead to party dissolution.
Watching from the sidelines, Pheu Thai, as the ruling group, knows well to tread cautiously with contract redraft.
In terms of both the formality and substance, the contract amendment is undoubtedly a difficult matter.
Referenda were necessary, according to the Constitutional Court, for key sections of the contract to be reworked. To the astonishment of the MFP, Pheu Thai proposed holding three elections, each costing at least three billion baht to organize, fearing that they might overreach the constitutional cap.
The first will question the electorate if they support the proposal to create a new contract. The next election will inquire if Part 256 should be amended to allow for the creation of a new contract if the majority of voters agree.
When a new contract is produced, the government may hold a second vote, asking voters to choose whether it should be adopted.
When the information of the election process were presented, a stalemate formed. The crux of the matter had to do with the double-majority law, which most political events, especially Pheu Thai and PP, want to do away with.
The requirement for a double-majority, which stipulates that at least half of eligible voters had cast their ballots and that at least half of the vote participation must support a winning ballot, will be too challenging to fulfill, they claimed.
However, backers claimed that the NCPO attempted to pass the existing law in 2017 with the same guidelines.
The PP has warned that the double-majority necessity could potentially lead to the derailment of a vote in the future by encouraging sufficient voters to avoid voting stations.
The House of Representatives changed the double-majority condition to a simple majority rule shortly after, which was later rejected by the Senate in favor of the original necessity.
The time-consuming step that will eliminate any chance of holding a referendum by February of next year as some lawmakers had hoped must now be resolved in a mutual House-Senate meeting.
The threshold for passing should n’t be too low, according to several senators who argued that referendums are meant to decide issues of national significance.
The idea of holding a February vote was considered because it would allow the election to take place simultaneously with the provincial government elections, which politicians claim will save a lot of money and hassle.
But, Nikorn Chamnong, director of the House panel on the election costs, recently said a February vote is unlikely.
Because the parliament is currently in recess and wo n’t hold a meeting until the following month, he claimed, it was impossible for the parliament to convene a joint House-Senate meeting to discuss the double-majority rule.
Battle for the committee
Kittiratt: Required rate reductions in the past
The Bank of Thailand ( BoT ) chair’s appointment has been delayed twice, sparking new rumors that the Finance Ministry may be taking a step back and putting forth an alternative strategy.
There is no doubt that the lag in finding a leader to Porametee Vimolsiri, whose term ended on Sept 16, is due to harsh criticism to the Finance Ministry’s member, Kittiratt Na-Ranong, for the blog.
The state has indicated that it will seek the replacement of Mr. Porametee, with Mr. Kittiratt likely to be the choice.
Among the academics who argue against the government-supported prospect are four previous central bank rulers: MR Pridiyathorn Devakula, Tarisa Watanagase, Prasarn Trairatvorakul and Veerathai Santiprabhob, who have expressed their antagonism to social members serving as head of the central bank’s table.
Criticism is expressed by Mr. Kittiratt’s claim that he has obvious political connections to the Pheu Thai Party, despite the fact that he is recognized as a professional who is knowledgeable about finance and the treasury and meets the proper requirements for the position of board chairman.
He served as Srettha Thavisin’s deputy adviser and deputy leader of the ruling party’s financial strategy.
Over the reduction of interest charges to stimulate the economy, there has been ongoing conflict between the government of the central bank, Sethaput Suthiwartnarueput, and politicians.
Mr. Srettha frequently requested that the central bank lower rates to help the government solve its economic woes while he was in office, but Mr. Sethaput remained firm and steadfastly upheld the central bank’s independence.
The former president’s critics find his previous criticism of the central lender to be quite alarming. Some of Mr. Kittiratt’s statements about policy rates appeared to indicate social interference with the Monetary Policy Committee of the central bank.
Due to his controversial connection with the central bank, Mr. Kittiratt is met with strong opposition, according to Sirikanya Tansakun, the party’s deputy president and PP head.
Mr. Kittiratt, who was also the deputy prime minister, was known for pressuring the central banks to reduce interest rates in order to promote economic growth while serving as the finance minister in the Yingluck Shinawatra management.
The former finance minister even expressed his deep desire to remove the government of the central bank, according to Ms. Sirikanya, along with his anger with the central bank. According to him, he claimed to be attempting to remove the main bank governor many times per day.
The PP deputy leader and list MP refuted says that the committee president has no authority to change the policy level, calling them” never entirely true.”
The president also has a state in the central bank’s Monetary Policy Committee’s selection process, according to Ms. Sirikanya, who just needs three votes to affect the committee’s decision.
According to Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira, the board president does not really have that much decision-making power because most of such power often lies with the board’s divisions.
Mr. Pichai noted that the selection committee has the right to choose, and that the Finance Ministry and the central banks have the right to change the list of candidates.
His statement is causing rumors that the Finance Ministry perhaps announce a fresh list of candidates at the upcoming Monday meeting and that Mr. Kittiratt’s nomination may be disqualified from consideration.
Pongpanu Svetarundra, a former permanent director for commerce and activities, may be considered for the position, according to rumors.
But, Thanaporn Sriyakul, director of the Political and Public Policy Analysis Institute, sees stuff different, suggesting that the Finance Ministry is likely to remain backing Mr Kittiratt.
He claimed that Surapon Nitikraipot, the leader of the Thammasat University Council and an independent producer of PTT Plc., does not think Mr. Kittiratt is any worse than the other two candidates the government has nominated.
Moreover, Mr Kittiratt has an advantage over the piece and Mr Pongpanu due to his political expertise, which makes him a powerful decision-maker and more open to public attention and susceptible to common opinion, according to Mr Thanaporn.
Although the central bank’s inner circle has reservations about Mr. Kittiratt, they should be able to better understand the financial structure and recognize that political interference could seriously affect the nation’s monetary and fiscal policies, according to Mr. Thanaporn.
The opposition still has the authority to hold the finance minister account through a no-confidence discussion, according to Mr. Thanaporn, even if the board chairman had any negative impact on the nation’s monetary and fiscal policy.