Given the overwhelming backing the House of Representatives has for the work, rewriting the law should be simple.
But, it is far from simple. The vote is the formidable obstacle in the way of victory. To authorize a complete overhaul of the contract, a referendum may be held.
Remnant of tyranny
The opposition’s People’s Party and the decision Pheu Thai Party have made significant strides this year to allow lawmakers to vote in favor of a democratic redraft, mainly through dramatic pushes.
The pulls were motivated by the idea that the nation’s 20th law, which was approved in 2017, was basically a relic of tyranny and was developed and approved by the coup-maker National Council for Peace and Order, which overthrew the Prayut Chan-o-cha administrations to energy.
Critics criticized the charter’s temporary section, which stated that the NCPO-handpicked Senate had the authority to co-elect a prime minister alongside the MPs.
Sensations voted against the provision after last year’s general election, which led to previous PP innovator Pita Limjaroenrat being denied the position of prime minister.
Otherwise, the Senate seconded Pheu Thai’s prime ministerial member Srettha Thavisin.
The cross-professionally elected replacements took the place of the NCPO-chosen lawmakers in May of this year, when the prime minister’s co-election section expired.
Despite being dubbed the” cheat-buster” law, it is attacked for having exceedingly augmented the power of the independent companies. The Internet Dialogue on Law Reform (iLaw ) points to a case in point where the Constitutional Court hasruled that political positions, including the prime minister, can be removed.
Even controversial was the constitution’s lack of road for individuals to petition for senate of common office-holders, contrary to the earlier charters. The maximum petitioners were reduced to 20, 000 after the 2007 contract reduced the least petitioners to 50, 000. The 1997 constitution allowed at least 50, 000 eligible voters to file a petition with congress.
Nikorn: ‘ Cooling off ‘ time causes squeeze
Simplify election
By eliminating the double-majority law, PP and Pheu Thai have been at the vanguard of the plan to simplify and expedite the election process.
The concept has turned out to be much more complicated than was anticipated. It has also been a futile training to figure out how to divide the House.
Pheu Thai’s initial indication of trouble dates back to January when they sought the Constitutional Court’s recommendation for how many law amendment referendums to be held.
An government-appointed council was preoccupied with drawing up fresh recommendations for holding a vote. Phumtham Wechayachai, the deputy prime minister and trade secretary, presided over the meeting.
The Phumtham screen backed a plan to carry three law act referendums, as ruled by the courtroom, costing 10.5 billion ringgit in complete.
The first inquiry would be whether voters would approve a charter rewrite, whether Section 256 of the Constitution, which allows for the establishment of a charter drafting assembly ( CDA ), needs to be amended, and thirdly whether voters would support the adoption of a new charter.
In the two-referendum names, participants must ask for changes to the contract. A subsequent referendum would follow if the first one was approved so that voters could choose whether to approve the new version.
However, Pheu Thai’s internal working team advocated only two referendums to save money and time, a stand shared by the now-dissolved main opposition Move Forward Party ( MFP), which was the PP’s predecessor.
House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha received two costs to change the Referendum Act, one of which was proposed by coalition parties and the other of which was sponsored by the opposition union. The two largest parties banded together to introduce the legislation.
The Referendum Act 2021’s amendment, which requires more than 50 % of eligible voters to cast a ballot and the majority of those voting to review the new contract, was approved by the government in April.
The law was criticized for making it difficult for a vote to pass the minimum requirement and for preventing the passage of crucial laws, especially those that would change the constitution. A special committee was established in congress to examine changes to the vote rules.
At their first reading, the House approved for thought four expenses attempting to amend the Referendum Act by the middle of June. Immediately 450 MPs voted in behalf, with one abstaining. The bills were tabled separately by the cabinet, the ruling Pheu Thai Party, the opposition Move Forward Party ( MFP), and the Bhumjaithai Party.
They preferred only a single preponderance, or more than half of the votes cast, over the controversial “double bulk” condition in the Referendum Act.
The dual lot refers to two conditions that must be met before a referendum result may be deemed bound by Section 13 of the Referendum Act. Second, more than 50 % of eligible voters may have participated in the election, and next, the majority of those who cast their votes may have approved.
The House section, which vetted four bills that sought to change the election law in July, made the decision to change the deadline for holding a vote on a charter rewrite. Prior to that, the council agreed that the first vote on a contract update would take place on the same day as a regional election or a public vote.
The board, according to Mr. Nikorn, has decided that a vote must be held never afterwards than 150 days before the election day and no later than 60 days prior.
As the death of the double bulk was being decided, tensions started to rise in late August.
Senate for dual lot
The vote bill passed by the House received a growing number of senators who vehemently opposed it. They objected to the House of Representatives trumpeting a second majority in place of the dual majority requirement.
At the same time, the third-rank Bhumjaithai made an about-face when it announced it little more sided with the double-majority law being axed. The bar may be raised because it echoed the Senate’s position that referendums decide major national issues that require a thorough approval process.
Parit Wacharasindhu, a member of the PP list, expressed concern that the double-majority concept may incite unjust behavior among voters. Voters who are willing to vote in a referendum would resort to waiting, which may make the double-majority rule fail.
” This is not about increasing the ease of passing a vote. However, the rules does not prevent one part from gaining an unfair advantage by calling for a no-show for a referendum, according to Mr. Parit. Some lawmakers are believed to be “blue-affiliated”. Blue is Bhumjaithai’s color.
In early October, the House rejected the Senate’s shift to the vote bill to restore the dual majority principle on a ballot of 348 to zero, with 65 nays. Bhumjaithai opted not to participate in the rejection ballot.
The two Properties set up a joint council to settle their differences after finding a way to reconcile their dissension regarding the double-majority section. The Senate was scheduled to brand its council members on October 15 because the 28 chairs on the panel were evenly distributed between the two Houses.
Nevertheless, the formation of the screen raised questions when two MPs voted in favor of a senator, Pol Maj Gen Chattrawat Saengpet, as president, a position that could have a significant influence at meetings where important decisions need to be made.
Seeing that neither House was willing to make agreement, Nikorn Chamnong, director of the commission, proposed a “one and a half” bulk rule, in which the action backed by more than 50 % of qualified voters in a referendum is retained, but the activity does not always have to be backed by a lot.
He claimed that a report on the cabinet’s consideration of charter amendments back in April made reference to the option. Pheu Thai, however, chided his input, which ended in a debacle, as being almost identical to the double majority.
Wissanu: More trouble than needed
‘ Cooling off’ period
A 180-day” cooling off” period will be required before the move to amend the referendum bill will resume, the joint committee announced early this month.
It implies that a charter rewrite won’t be completed within the current government’s terms, according to the joint panel. The House may choose to pass the bill into law after the period has expired and insist on a single majority overriding a double majority.
With the cooling-off period being taken into account, according to Mr. Nikorn, it is unlikely that the current government will have enough time to finish the charter rewrite.
Former deputy prime minister and legal expert Wissanu Krea-ngam concurred that the referendum will present what appear to be insurmountable legal and technical challenges for the passage of a complete constitutional amendment within the House of Representatives ‘ current term.
He claimed that the bill to lay the groundwork for a referendum appears to be causing more trouble for lawmakers than it should. At least three referendums, as ruled by the court, must be organised with an approval vote before major changes can be made to the charter. According to Mr. Wissanu, the best option was to “limited charter amendment,” in which section by section the constitution is rewritten without requiring a referendum to be held.
Parit: Wants job done before poll
Staying put
Mr Parit, meanwhile, is still pushing two referendums. He recently suggested that the creation of the charter drafting body should take place in parliament during the cooling-off period to save time.
However, chief government whip Wisut Chainarun rejected his suggestion, insisting the 180-day suspension must be observed.
Mr. Wisut acknowledged that the possibility of two separate charter referendums had been discussed, but that he had spoken with parliament’s legal team and parliament president Wan Muhamad Noor Matha, who claimed that the 180-day suspension must have expired before any further action can be taken.
He added that it’s unlikely to be finished before the 2027 election’s upcoming charter rewrite.
The proposed charter rewrite would not violate a recent Constitutional Court ruling, according to the opposition party, and two referendums would be sufficient. Before the next election, a new constitution would be up and running in this case.
However, analysts have a different opinion, especially given the lingering differences between the House and Senate regarding the referendum rules.