Three significant problems, two of which are interconnected and vulnerable to disappointment, have gripped regional politics.
For months, debates have been raging both inside and outside of parliament regarding the issues of the contract article, referendums, and asylum.
A special House committee’s findings recently suggested that a proposed asylum, intended to release constitutional offenders who had been motivated by political morality, should be extended to those who had violated Area 112 of the Criminal Code, the der majeste legislation.
The council looked into the possibility of expanding coverage for decades. While the panel found this to be possible, essentially and practically, resistance against an amnesty for Section 112 offenders was building rapidly within the coalition, to which the ruling party was very observant.
According to a source with knowledge of the situation, Pheu Thai could not see itself pushing for such an “all-in” asylum and exposed itself to risks in the short term because Part 112 being incorporated into an asylum meant benefiting past leading Thaksin Shinawatra, who was indicted on a der guess demand for comments he made to a South Korean paper.
Besides, Thaksin’s test could carry on for centuries through the three judges, and the former prime minister exudes confidence about his possibilities of conviction. His trial looks almost certain to surpass the government led by his youngest child, Paetongtarn, who has less than three years left in office.
A tough nut to crack for the study commission, which is led by PM’s Office Minister Chousak Sirinil, who is also Pheu Thai’s legitimate professional, was to come up with a strong suggestion on what an amnesty should include.
Critics were skeptical despite the commission’s numerous explanations and assurances that its analysis was insufficient to provide legal guidance to congress on the asylum issue.
They claimed that the commission’s findings have sufficient weight to influence lawmakers ‘ decisions.
They insisted likewise that a der guess cost is slanderous and therefore not a political, but legal, offence. As such, it should be omitted from an asylum.
Despite being criticized as being unconclusive, the statement may play a role in passing a bill to allow for the passage of an asylum. Legislators from both the government and the opposition camps have reaped with their combined opinions of the committee’s three options, including a full amnesty, a conditional amnesty, and none at all.
Pheu Thai and the main opposition People’s Party ( PP ) have prepared their own versions of an amnesty bill, which are pending adoption and deliberation in parliament, in the name of national unity and reconciliation.
The research report’s critics argued that it was the start of political unrest and that it was a means of condoning insults directed at the nation’s highest establishment.
In the end, the article’s attached “observation” containing the Area 112 offenders-inclusive provision was voted down by House users. However, the study’s main offer of an asylum for politically motivated legal offenders was left alive.
The parole scandal has been foreseen for the time being because parliament is already in recess.
The government could be in for two more probable timebombs when parliament reconvenes in the first half of the month.
Likewise, if not more exciting in its growth than the amnesty tussle, is the contentious referendum method to be used as appropriate for amending the constitution, long seen by many as unfair.
According to a source, how the referendum law is being reshaped could impact the charter’s “amenability”.
The PP and Pheu Thai made efforts to repeal the double-majority rule, which they claimed was the biggest impediment to a referendum outcome.
A referendum result must meet two conditions in accordance with Section 13 of the Referendum Act, which require the double majority. First, the majority of eligible voters must have approved the referendum and more than 50 % of eligible voters must have participated in it.
Politicians have criticized the rule, saying it sets the bar too high for referendums, preventing much-needed charter reforms, and putting the most difficult to do so.
The House of Representatives might have believed that eliminating the double majority rule would be simple. This provision was previously discarded, and it was replaced by a single majority, which would allow for a referendum to be held.
The Senate, as it turned out, was unable to pass legislation with a stronger mandate because it relied on the double majority method. Reasoning referendums are used to decide national issues of utmost importance.
The double majority rule will be resolved by a joint House-Senate committee, which could take up to six months. The timeframe is expected to delay charter amendment, possibly beyond the term of the current administration.
Questions of sovereignty
Maris: Defends MoU with Cambodia
In response to the memorandum of understanding ( MoU) controversy, Thailand’s government has repeatedly assured foreigners about Koh Kut’s status in the past two weeks, with Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra stating that the island is not included in Cambodia’s version of the border map.
The MoU critics, who claim that the government is trying to divert attention from the main point, are frustrated by their repeated assurances.
Most Thais, if not all, have no doubts about Thailand’s sovereignty over Koh Kut, they are more focused on the transparency of the talks on managing maritime resources under the MoU signed during the administration led by Thaksin Shinawatra, Ms Paetongtarn’s father.
Former leader of the yellow-shirt People’s Alliance for Democracy, Suriyasai Katasila, criticized for claiming Cambodia’s territorial disputes with Thailand were related to bilateral maritime resource sharing.
The Gulf of Thailand has been designated as the overlapping claims area in the 2001 MoU, according to the critics.
The best way to resolve this issue is to demand prior to any negotiations that Cambodia adhere to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Thailand’s territorial area, the Exclusive Economic Zone, and about half of Koh Kut were invaded by Cambodia’s unilateral drawing of the continental shelf borderline in 1972, prompting Thailand to file a counterclaim in 1973.
Foreign Affairs Minister Maris Sangiampongsa defended the MoU, calling it the “indivisible package” that provides a framework for negotiations on two maritime demarcations and the economic benefits of energy resources development.
He claimed that until an agreement on the maritime demarcation issue is reached, the MoU and any subsequent actions under it would not have an impact on either nation’s maritime claims.
Due to Thaksin Shinawatra’s close personal relationship with former Cambodian prime minister Hun Sen, the government is being asked to revoke the contentious MoU, according to observers.
Critics of Thaksin worried that any agreement reached under this MoU might prioritize the nation’s interests over those of Thaksin’s own because of how close their relationship is and Thaksin’s distrust of him, who is widely recognized as the de facto leader of the ruling Pheu Thai Party.
The current political climate is different from the one when Cambodia and Thailand were embroiled in a dispute over the Preah Vihear temple, according to Stithorn Thananithichot, director of the King Prajadhipok’s Institute’s Office of Innovation for Democracy.
Although Thailand ultimately lost the temple to Cambodia, Thai experts in international law at the time stepped up to defend the nation’s interests, he noted.
This time, however, the issue has not been as widely debated by experts. Additionally, those who make comments on the MoU provide conflicting information, making it difficult for people to determine reliable sources of information.
The nature of Thaksin and Hun Sen’s personal ties may play a role in this. Hun Sen was one of the first visitors to visit Thaksin when he was given the opportunity to leave for prison in the early part of this year, according to Mr. Stithorn.
Olarn Thinbangtieo, a political science lecturer at Burapha University in Chon Buri, echoed Mr Stithorn’s views.
Critics are skeptical about the Thai delegation’s independence in handling negotiations involving national interests because Thaksin is thought to have influence over the Pheu Thai Party, he said.
According to Mr. Olarn, Thaksin will be eager to see the government’s representatives take advantage of the opportunity to engage in negotiations under the MoU, build a casino-entertainment complex, and, if possible, secure the return of his fugitive sister Yingluck Shinawatra.
” If these core missions are accomplished, Thaksin will not have to worry about the next general election. He can bow out from politics because he will have reaped so much during Pheu Thai’s time in government”, he said.
The main opposition party, which allegedly ignored the government’s demands regarding the 2001 MoU and weakened the anti-MoU campaign, also expressed disappointment with the analyst.
The opposition party’s halb-hearted efforts to control the Pheu Thai-led government are generating rumors that the two parties may have come to terms with a secret agreement that will allow them to form a future alliance, he said.
” When the opposition fails to do its job or pulls its punches, it only adds weight to such speculation”, he added.