The Pheu Thai Party, known for its knack for navigating political waters, is exploring the possibility of amending the constitution just in time for the next election. The catch? They need to strike a delicate balance with their political adversaries. At the helm of these constitutional considerations is Prime Minister’s Office Minister Chousak Sirinil, an erudite legal maestro within the party, who has outlined three intriguing scenarios for passing a revised constitution.
Scenario one involves the parliament taking a strategic pause of 180 days, despite the lingering disagreements with the senators over the referendum law. Essentially, it’s a test of patience and persistence. Scenario two foresees differences being settled sans delay, like harmonizing an orchestra that’s been bickering over the tempo. And scenario three? Well, that’s the audacious route – amend the constitution without waiting for the law to clear its path.
The conception of these scenarios came into sharper focus when Nikorn Chamnong, the diligent secretary of the joint House-Senate panel on the charter referendum bill, expressed his growing skepticism about the revision’s completion before the upcoming 2027 general election. His concern was not entirely unfounded. After all, the Senate had steadfastly resuscitated the double-majority rule which had previously been quashed by the House. This rule demands not just a simple vote, but the kind where over half of all eligible voters must wield their ballots, and the victorious outcome requires the nod of at least half of the participants.
Most political parties, including Pheu Thai and the prominent opposition People’s Party, found this demanding double-majority hurdle burdensome, advocating instead for the more straightforward simple majority in the referendum. Their reasoning? A double majority, with its signature stringent measures, seems like climbing Mount Everest without oxygen. PP list-MP Parit Wacharasindhu vocalized his apprehensions, worried that a campaign might emerge to dissuade voters or even instigate a referendum boycott to ensure the challenging double majority remains elusive.
Contrary to these anxieties, critics stood their ground, pointing out that the double-majority rule had worked seamlessly during the previous referendum that saw the current constitution adopted. Nonetheless, the Senate’s reversion to the earlier rule nudged the creation of a joint MP-Senator panel, a kind of political bridge-building exercise to reconcile the disparities between the two legislative entities.
Failure to reach an agreement could lead the referendum bill into a 180-day suspension limbo. Yet, Mr. Parit offered a glimmer of hope – should the House hold steadfastly to its preference for the simple majority, it might still have the legislative power to enact the bill unilaterally post suspension.
This delay, however, has sparked fears of missing the referendum boat within the incumbent government’s tenure, potentially stalling charter change until after the next general election. Mr. Chousak mentioned on Saturday that the Pheu Thai Party is acutely aware of the obstacles blocking their path; party executives are fervently on the lookout for feasible solutions. To that end, they are even contemplating the bold maneuver of revising the charter sans a referendum bill, a daring gambit for sure.
On a conciliatory note, Anusorn Iamsa-ard, a Pheu Thai list MP, emphasized the quintessential importance of compromise among lawmakers. It’s essential, he remarked, for ironing out contentious wrinkles in the referendum bill and adhering as closely as possible to the original charter amendment timeline. Within this political theater, the ability to orchestrate consensus amid discord could very well be the game-changer.
The Pheu Thai Party is clearly trying to tighten its grip on power with these constitutional changes. It seems sneaky and underhanded.
Underhanded or just strategic? Every political party aims to strengthen its position. It’s politics at the end of the day.
Strategic maybe, but playing with the constitution is a serious matter. It shouldn’t just serve a party’s interests!
Agree with Anna here. It feels like they’re trying to bypass democratic values.
Why is everyone so upset? Constitutions are made to be amended. It’s like updating your phone software!
Comparing constitutional amendments to phone updates is overly simplistic. Constitutions define the very fabric of governance.
I get it, Mike, but we can’t act like change is inherently bad. Some updates are necessary!
Scenario three is absolutely reckless. Imagine a constitutional amendment without thorough legal backing; chaos will ensue.
Reckless or bold? Sometimes radical moves lead to effective solutions. Remember V for Vendetta?
Isn’t the double-majority rule just ensuring that everyone agrees? I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Ensuring agreement, yes, but it’s intentionally difficult so things don’t change without overwhelming support. That’s the debate.
I get that it’s difficult, but isn’t it supposed to be? It makes sure we’re all on the same page.
Opposition parties are right to stick with the simple majority. The double majority is like putting up unnecessary roadblocks.
Unnecessary for whom? It ensures that any changes reflect the will of a large majority.
Is all of this really just a theater play between political parties trying to look good for voters without any real intention to change?
Cynical view, but possibly true. Politicians are often more about talk than action.
I think bypassing the referendum bill is dangerously authoritative. It sets a dangerous precedent for ignoring public opinion.
Why is Pheu Thai so desperate to push this through? Do they really think voters will notice or care if there’s no consensus?
If the parliament keeps on postponing important decisions, we’ll never see any improvement in governance.
Exactly, Jack! Indecision is worse than a bad decision sometimes. We need action!
Skeptical of Pheu Thai’s intentions, but if they do find a solution, it might be a solid step towards democracy.
Are we sure this isn’t just about Pheu Thai wanting to solidify their power base for 2027?
These constitutional amendments seem complex. I wonder if the average voter even understands the implications fully.
That’s a great point, Nina. Comprehensive voter education should accompany any proposed changes.
The Pheu Thai focusing on pushing these reforms seems like a last-ditch effort to maintain relevance among its voter base.
Why don’t they just do a survey to see what most people want instead of relying on these contentious scenarios?
The constitutional loopholes are indeed openings for parties to pass or block tools of governance. The stakes have never been higher!
I think the double-majority rule is fine. If something is truly beneficial, it should easily pass both tests.
Or it just means more campaigning to ensure people show up and vote in favor, which might be expensive and tedious.
A 180-day suspension period might just mean the current government is buying time to come up with a better strategy.
Are we just chasing our tails here? Seems like no matter what they do, there will be opposition from someone.
If Pheu Thai can pull off this constitutional amendment without causing political turmoil, it will be quite an achievement.
Does the Senate always feel the need to overturn decisions made by the House? It’s like they enjoy conflict for the sake of it.