As dawn’s first light kissed the Democracy Monument, a lone bird soared above, embodying the hope and freedom so deeply cherished in Bangkok. However, not all was as serene in the political landscape as this tranquil scene suggested. The Pheu Thai Party’s abrupt U-turn on their proposed charter amendment concerning the ethical standards for political officeholders has stirred significant debate.
Initially, Pheu Thai set out to modify certain sections of the 2017 constitution, emphasizing Section 160 which charts out the criteria for anyone aspiring to be a minister. It insists on unblemished honesty and a clean ethical record. Yet, this proposal clashed headlong into robust opposition from coalition partners like Bhumjaithai and the United Thai Nation (UTN) parties. Sorawong Thienthong, Pheu Thai’s secretary-general, hinted that the bill might be withdrawn for further contemplation.
The Bangkok Post reached out to analysts and political representatives to dissect whether such incremental amendments could prosper and if the charter’s complete overhaul could adhere to its proposed timeline.
Public Sentiment Takes the Lead
Pheu Thai list-MP Sutin Klungsang underscored the importance of public opinion in revising the constitution, asserting that this was the driving force behind their sudden backpedal. He dismissed any notion of embarrassment, pointing instead to a broader vision focusing on a comprehensive rewrite addressing political ethics.
The road ahead, according to Mr. Sutin, appears foggy, given the necessity for multiple rounds of public referenda, making it uncertain when the new charter might come into force. Despite these challenges, there remains a possibility for future section-by-section amendments if pressing issues arise.
Mr. Sutin defended the initial proposition, emphasizing its goal of stabilizing political office rather than serving self-interests. “With time, perhaps our coalition partners will align with our perspective. If they recognize politicians as true representatives of the people, this would transcend any notions of personal gain,” he remarked.
Section-by-Section: A Hard Sell
Given the fierce resistance from coalition partners, Pheu Thai’s pursuit of sectional amendments seems improbable, according to a source within the People’s Party (PP). Despite the bleak outlook for their proposals, the PP continues to raise awareness about flaws in the constitution.
“Highlighting these issues is essential,” the source explained, mentioning the ongoing ethical scrutiny involving former members of the now-dissolved Move Forward Party (MFP). The PP’s resolve remains firm even if reforms stretch beyond a three-year horizon, impeded partly by a Senate suspected of being under coalition influence.
Following Pheu Thai’s reversal, PP list-MP Parit Wacharasindhu announced a pause on amendments concerning political ethics, aiming to avoid jeopardizing other party-supported initiatives like coup prevention, military reform, and counteracting government collusion with the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).
Interest or Intrigue?
UTN’s deputy leader Wittaya Kaewparadai criticized Pheu Thai’s proposal, labeling it divisive and likely to spark conflict akin to past controversies. Referencing the Yingluck Shinawatra administration’s contentious blanket amnesty bill, he warned of potential street protests and suggested such divisive issues could still animate big responses, however diminished in scale.
Mr. Wittaya held little faith in Pheu Thai’s success with charter amendments unless they realigned with the opposition People’s Party. He insisted the government honor its commitment to a comprehensive rewrite, excluding the sacrosanct Chapters 1 & 2.
Referendum’s Uncertain Horizon
Before Pheu Thai’s sudden shift, Nikorn Chamnong, secretary to the special House committee on the referendum bill, voiced concerns that mingling ethical standards amendments with the larger charter rewrite might complicate the approval process. The inclusion in the referendum could sway voter decisions, adding another layer of complexity.
The House’s recent amendments to the Referendum Act, which replaced the “double majority” requirement with a simple majority, passed with robust support. Despite this, senators suggested reinstating the stricter rule, potentially slowing down the referendum that was tentatively slated for early February.
Political science lecturer Yutthaporn Issarachai from Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University observed that without consensus among coalition partners, charter amendments would struggle to advance. He highlighted the necessity for negotiation to maintain coalition unity, citing the cannabis policy compromise as an example of effective coalition management.
If the Senate and House fail to synchronize their positions, delays in the charter rewrite and subsequent referendums seem inevitable, casting uncertain shadows over the envisioned timeline.
Pheu Thai’s sudden reversal is such a disservice to the public. They promised change and now they’re backing down because they can’t handle opposition!
I disagree. They’re being pragmatic by avoiding a deadlock. It’s not about cowardice, it’s strategy.
Pragmatic or not, it’s betrayal. They made a commitment to the people and now they’re wavering under pressure.
The coalition needs unity. Without it, nothing gets done. Isn’t compromise better than chaos?
Pheu Thai should have anticipated this resistance before making any promises. Poor planning on their part.
The ethical standpoints proposed by Pheu Thai were always going to be contentious. High standards are important, but politics is a game of compromise.
Then what’s the point in having standards if you constantly compromise them?
It’s about balancing ideals and practicalities. No country achieves perfect governance.
Indeed, history shows that rigid stances often lead to greater conflict rather than progress.
But compromising on ethics? Isn’t that a slippery slope?
This backpedal just shows how much control the coalition parties have over Pheu Thai. Democracy isn’t truly functioning here.
It’s about coalition politics. If they can’t work together, nothing moves forward.
Coalitions are meant to represent diverse views. That’s democracy, even if it’s messy.
This uncertainty in Thai politics is just another sign of instability. Bad for business and investment.
Agreed, investors crave stability. This back-and-forth doesn’t inspire confidence.
Pheu Thai’s move is a reflection of Thailand’s complex political landscape. Changing the constitution is never easy and should involve multiple rounds of consideration.
How can anyone expect ethical standards from politicians who keep flip-flopping on their promises? This is why people lose faith in politics.
UTN’s criticism is valid. Pheu Thai should focus on less contentious areas first. Starting with ethics was always bound to fail.
They aimed too high too quickly. Incremental changes would’ve been wiser.
Exactly. Small steps lead to big changes eventually. Rushing never works in politics.
Can’t blame them for trying to address critical issues. Ethical governance is fundamental for public trust.
Politics is never straightforward. Expecting quick and radical changes in a country like Thailand is naive.
Naive or necessary? Radical changes are needed to break the cycle of corruption!
This whole debacle shows that Thailand’s constitutional framework is too rigid. Flexibility is needed to make any real progress.
Sutin Klungsang is right about one thing: Comprehensive changes might be the only way, but who has the patience for such drawn-out processes?
Pheu Thai should stick to their guns. Backing down sets a bad precedent.
Sticking to their guns could also mean failing to achieve anything significant. It’s a delicate balance.
I see your point, but showing resilience can also galvanize public support. People want strong leaders.
Political ethics and standards shouldn’t be negotiable. If we start compromising here, where do we draw the line?
Agreed. A democracy should have a foundation of unwavering ethical standards.
The People’s Party should keep pushing for a complete overhaul. Piecemeal amendments won’t fix the deep-rooted issues.
Senators reinstating the “double majority” requirement just shows their intent to stall progress. Typical political maneuvering.
It’s not about ethics; it’s about power. The coalition partners just don’t want to lose leverage over the Pheu Thai.