Opposition is swelling against a move by the ruling Pheu Thai Party and the main opposition People’s Party (PP) to tweak parts of the 2017 constitution, focusing especially on the ethical standards mandated for political office-holders. The Bhumjaithai Party, a senator, and coalition partner, has thrown its weight behind the growing clamor to preserve these charter provisions.
The Pheu Thai Party had submitted its partial charter amendment bill to the House last Wednesday. This came hot on the heels of a similar proposal by the PP the previous week. House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha announced that the House’s deliberation on these bills would likely commence around mid-October. He reassured that there would be no delays beyond this month.
The contentious provisions targeted for amendment include Section 160, which outlines the prerequisites for aspiring cabinet ministers. This section demands that candidates must be evidently honest and have not committed severe ethical violations while in political office.
Pol Col Kob Atchanakitti, a senator allied with the “blue” camp—a reference to Bhumjaithai—vehemently opposes any changes to the ethical standards for political office-holders. “Ethics are paramount for politicians. If they lack ethics, they should steer clear of politics and stay home. Parliament is not their playground,” he remarked. “Their priority should be resolving issues that impact the people, not amending the constitution. Political crises arise when politicians disregard the law.”
Similarly, Deputy House Speaker and Bhumjaithai MP, Paradorn Prissananantakul, stressed that the charter should not be amended for politicians’ benefit. “Will the proposed changes benefit politicians? No one heeds politicians who have a stake in charter amendments. The citizens must have the final say,” he asserted.
Chaichana Detdecho, deputy leader of the coalition partner Democrat Party, also voiced his disapproval. He stated that those assuming government office must be prepared to undergo scrutiny under the current ethical standards set by the charter.
Paiboon Nititawan, secretary-general of the Palang Pracharath Party, cautioned that any attempts by politicians to revise ethical standards for their own benefit could result in conflicts of interest.
Echoing similar sentiments, Thanakorn Wangboonkongchana, deputy leader of another coalition partner, the United Thai Nation Party (UTN), firmly opposed such amendments. He emphasized that the original purpose of Sections 160 (4) and (5) was to prevent individuals who fall short of moral standards from assuming public office. He warned that any erosion of these standards could pave the way for unscrupulous individuals to climb to power.
On the flip side, Justice Minister Pol Col Tawee Sodsong had previously supported amending these ethical stipulations, arguing that the current definitions of “honesty” were vague. However, in a surprising twist, Pol Col Tawee, leader of the Prachachart Party, recently aligned with keeping the ethical standards intact. He stressed the need for these standards to be clearly defined and documented for reference.
Former election commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn had previously warned that any attempts to meddle with the charter—especially provisions concerning political ethics and the authority of independent agencies—could backfire. He cited the Pheu Thai Party’s earlier effort to pass such a bill during Yingluck Shinawatra’s administration, which sparked massive street protests and ultimately led to the 2014 coup that toppled the Pheu Thai-led government. This infamous blanket amnesty bill was widely seen as an attempt to legally exonerate her older brother, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
It’s absurd to think that lowering ethical standards for politicians could ever be a good thing. We need stricter rules, not looser ones!
Agree. Politicians are already dodging accountability left and right. Lowering the bar will just open the floodgates for corrupt officials.
This is just an attempt to clear the way for more corrupt practices. The current standards aren’t even being enforced properly!
Exactly, Sandra! If anything, we should be doubling down on enforcing these standards.
I don’t see the big deal. If you want better politicians, why not focus on electing better people instead of enforcing these unrealistic standards?
John_Doe, the standards are there for a reason. It’s easier said than done to elect ‘better’ politicians when the system itself is flawed.
Kara G. is right. The standards are supposed to weed out the unqualified. Without them, how do we maintain any trust in the system?
Should we really be surprised? Politicians always find ways to bend the rules to benefit themselves. This is no different.
You’re not wrong. But this is dangerous territory. It’s not just bending the rules, it’s obliterating them.
Mark T., it’s not a matter of surprise but of pushback. Should we just sit back and accept it?
Fair point, David. It’s just disheartening to see these antics repeatedly. But we definitely need to stay vigilant.
Ethical standards in politics are essential. Without them, corruption becomes normalized. Has history taught us nothing?
Totally agree, Lynn. Lowering these standards only serves those already in positions of power.
Ethics should never be compromised. It’s the foundation of any legitimate government.
Those defending these amendments obviously have self-interests in mind. How can we trust our leaders if they lower ethical standards?
Tara_S, untrustworthy leaders are why we’re in this mess to begin with.
Exactly, Tara. The real question is how much are we willing to compromise until our trust in the government is completely eroded?
Not much more, Sandra. We need to draw the line somewhere and enforce what’s right.
I find it hard to believe any good can come from amending these sections. The ethical standards were put there for a reason.
Steve, exactly. These standards are meant to serve as a barrier against corrupt and unethical behavior. Removing them is simply dangerous.
As a citizen, I’m more concerned about how they propose to ‘resolve issues affecting people’ while they’re busy trying to pass laws that benefit them.
The intentions behind these amendments are so transparent. This is about politicians protecting themselves, not serving the public.
I don’t think loosening ethical standards is going to help anyone but the corrupt politicians themselves. Keep the amendments out.
Darius, that’s the crux of the issue here. Allowing these amendments would be a green light for corruption.
Honesty and integrity should be non-negotiable for anyone holding political office. Amending these sections makes no sense.
It’s always the same story. Politicians looking to protect their own. When will we see real reforms that benefit the people?
Real reforms come from real leaders, Benjamin. Unfortunately, they’re a rare breed.
Kelly, you’re right. We need more leaders who care about the people, not their own pockets.
I’m tired of these political maneuvers. How about focusing on fixing the economy or healthcare instead of this nonsense?
It’s easier to change the rules than solve real problems, Michelle. That’s why they do it.
Lowering ethical standards? Really? This just shows how out of touch they are with what people want.
If they want to lower standards, they should be the first to be scrutinized under them. Bet they won’t like that!
Standards need to be clear and enforceable, not reduced. The whole integrity of the system is at stake otherwise.
We’re talking about the backbone of a democratic system here. Ethical standards are not up for negotiation.
If ethical standards are compromised, who will hold these politicians accountable? Are they above the law now?
Amending these standards to be more lenient is like giving politicians a free pass to corruption. Absolutely unacceptable.
Tony S., that’s the concern! This will only embolden those with bad intentions.
Having clear ethical standards is fundamental. It’s not just about politics; it’s about what kind of society we want to build.