Wan backs call for three referenda

Wan backs call for three referenda

Says it’s a necessity to update mandate

Wan backs call for three referenda
Holding three parliaments, according to House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha, would be the best course of action to take to prevent the Constitutional Court from afterward invalidating the law amendment bid. ( File photo )

Thin Muhamad Noor Matha, the speaker of the house, supported a recommendation from the study panel that three referendums be held if the overall contract is to be amended.

Three elections would be required for amending the whole contract, according to a board led by Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Phumtham Wechayachai, and the government will be asked to do so next year.

According to Mr. Wan Noor, having three referenda is the best course of action to take to prevent the Constitutional Court from afterwards invalidating the law amendment bid.

” The election issue has a jury ruling.” If we do n’t abide by it, it will be a waste of time. The public wants amendments to the charter, and it’s the government’s plan to include them in the various functions ‘ campaigns. We must do it best,” he said.

He was responding to censure that the three elections, costing 3 billion ringgit each to organise, may be extremely expensive, time-consuming and disruptive.

Mr. Wan Noor questioned whether proposals to amend the contract that the decision Pheu Thai Party and the main opposition party Move Forward was adopt would be put on the House plan.

According to the court’s ruling, a earlier, favorable referendum vote is required to change crucial portions of the charter or change it altogether.

So, I ca n’t say whether it will be put on the agenda because I’ll have the proposal for a charter amendment studied first,” he said.

A plea by parliament asking for a decision on whether the contract may be changed before a vote is held was rejected on Wednesday. How many should be held in total should be decided.

Additionally, the petition asked the court to decide whether parliament does include a motion for policy amendment on its agenda for discussion.

The judges claimed that the judge had already rendered a decision and that the leader of legislature is authorized to include the issue on the plan.

A charter rewrite could n’t be carried out without a referendum, according to the court’s earlier ruling. Yet, the ruling did no spell out how many elections would be needed.