A co-worker in the coalition party claims it is unwise to also consider a update without first holding a vote.
PUBLISHED: 11 Feb 2025 at 21: 22
Efforts to deliberate bills seeking to amend Section 256 of the constitution, which would pave the way for setting up a charter drafting assembly ( CDA ), are highly unlikely to be successful, says Nikorn Chamnong, director of the Chartthaipattana Party, a partner in the coalition government.
He made the comment on Tuesday before congress was scheduled to begin deliberating the payments, one proposed by the ruling Pheu Thai Party and the other by the major opposition People’s Party, starting on Thursday.
It would be challenging to change Section 256 because it is still uncertain whether discussions can begin without a common referendum to ask for permission, as some people believe the proposed change would be similar to revising the existing charter and creating a new one.
According to Mr. Nikorn, who was the director of a House committee and set up to study different election and act options, a 2021 decision from the Constitutional Court mandates that for a referendum become held before and after any attempt to rewrite the constitution.
If politicians vote on these expenses without holding a referendum second, their actions may be deemed illegal, he said.
” Someone will probably petition the Constitutional Court to reject this decision, while those who support these charges may face ethics concerns,” he said.
Thin Muhamad Noor Matha, the president of the parliament, defended his decision on Monday to put bills calling for fundamental constitutional changes to be put on the agenda without having a second referendum held. He claimed that he had never violated any laws.
Given the potential danger, the Chartthaipattana Party may choose not to vote on the expenses, he added. The group is not required to review these expenses because they were submitted by two political parties rather than the government, he continued.
The group also don’t agree with certain pieces of the expenses, which, for example, pave the way for allowing changes to the first two chapters of the 2017 law, which is clearly against the government’s agreed rule, Mr Nikorn said.
Book 1 contains areas that describe Thailand as a single, unbroken nation with a political system and the King as the head of state. Chapter 2, however, outlines royal privileges.
Mr Nikorn said the proposal by the Women’s Party to have a completely elected CDA is even controversial. He thinks it would be very challenging to deliberate these charter-rewriting expenses.
The charter-rewriting shift would still need to wait until the election bill is passed into laws, which is not anticipated to occur before July, he said.
Jurin Laksanawisit, a Democrat Party list-MP, said he felt the same way about the charter-rewriting costs, saying he thinks parliament would act without first holding a referendum would come off as illegal.
Parit Wacharasindhu, a spokesman for the People’s Party, expressed confidence that the organized discussion is in line with the contract. The acceptance of them in process does not necessarily imply that a revised version of the charter may be approved right away. A vote could still be held afterwards, he said.