Nikorn Chamnong, a key figure in the political landscape of Thailand, recently reaffirmed the necessity of holding not one, not two, but three rounds of referendums for any proposed rewrite of the 2017 constitution. As the secretary to the joint House-Senate panel on the referendum bill, Nikorn firmly stood his ground on this contentious issue. On a recent Wednesday, he made it clear that any claims suggesting fewer referendums would suffice—such as those made by People’s Party list MP Parit Wacharasindhu—were simply not aligned with the legal requirements. Parit had optimistically pointed to what he interpreted as a confirmation from Parliament President Wan Muhammad Noor Matha in a recent meeting, asserting that two referendums should be enough.
According to Nikorn, however, the requirement for three referendums is anchored in a Constitutional Court ruling from March 2021. This ruling mandates that if a comprehensive overhaul of the charter is on the table, it cannot bypass this three-step process. He emphasized that a meeting between President Wan and Parit, who heads the House committee on political development, does not alter this judicial decree, as it holds far-reaching implications for the legislative processes.
Parit’s meeting with Wan revolved around the idea of expediting the referendum procedure to ensure a newly drafted constitution could be ready ahead of the next general election. Parit argued that by trimming the number of necessary referendums to two, the government could fast-track the journey towards a freshly minted charter. But Nikorn stood firm, cautioning that reducing the referendum count was not within Parliament’s purview. He warned that any premature efforts by the parliament president to introduce charter amendment bills could spark a formal complaint.
Reflecting on past endeavors, he referenced the People’s Party’s previous challenges in attempting to assemble a charter-drafting assembly (CDA) in 2021—a move that was thwarted. Back then, the military-appointed Senate voiced significant concerns about legislative violations and requested a court ruling before allowing the bill to progress to its third reading. Nikorn anticipates similar hurdles for the current charter amendment bill, predicting obstruction as early as the first reading, which would inevitably add layers of delay to the rewrite process.
Following his discussion with Wan, Parit expressed his intention to push forward with submitting a charter amendment bill. This step would set in motion deliberations among the government, opposition, and Senate whips, potentially reopening the debate over the number of referendums required. Armed with fresh insights, Parit is confident he can persuade political leaders that two rounds would indeed suffice.
In his defense, Parit contends that the 2021 court ruling did not explicitly stipulate an exact number for the referendum cycles. It merely stated that a referendum must precede any charter rewrite, which he interprets as an indirect allowance for fewer rounds. In his view, two would indeed be enough, allowing the wheels of constitution reform to turn more swiftly. As the debate continues, only time will reveal whether the political tides will sway in Parit’s favor, or if the steadfast insistence on three referendums will remain the indomitable norm.
I think three referendums are a waste of time! Just a bureaucratic nonsense to stall necessary reforms.
But isn’t ensuring a legitimate process more important? Three rounds might prevent rash changes that could harm democracy.
Three just seems excessive. We want reform, not endless referendums. Surely two is enough!
I get it, but how often do politicians actually listen to the people anyway? One round should do if they were truly committed.
Stalling might be the whole point, unfortunately. The old guard loves their status quo.
Am I the only one who actually agrees with Nikorn? Three referendums ensure everyone really wants these changes.
Could two referendums like Parit suggests bring about reforms any faster? Or is it just political posturing?
I’d say it’s a bit of both. In politics, appearing efficient matters, whether or not it’s effective.
Thailand’s slower democratic processes might actually serve as a bulwark against rash decisions. That’s a positive.
Positive to some, perhaps, but for those waiting for crucial changes, it’s painful!
Not to mention how much money is wasted on these long processes. That resources could be better spent!
Nikorn is right; we shouldn’t compromise democratic procedures just because they seem tedious.
Every time there’s a change proposed, there’s always some legal jabber holding things back. What’s wrong with two for fast-paced times like these?
Two could work if it’s well-regulated, but such a compromise would need rock-solid legal groundwork.
The constitution isn’t something you rewrite every day. A methodical approach like Nikorn suggests is vital. One can’t sew a parachute with cheap thread.
That’s a good metaphor, but what if the parachute’s already flawed and needs quick fixing?
Good point, Anna. Quick fixes can be necessary, but not at the cost of structural integrity.
Honestly, these guys just want to keep talking to dodge accountability. If the public wants change, let it happen.
I’d argue for a single binding referendum at the start to see if substantial interest exists. Best of both worlds.
Returning to a strict legal approach is necessary. Laws are there for a reason, and Nikorn’s cautious approach could safeguard longer-term stability.
Sometimes, laws are outdated. New times require new approaches.
Parit’s idea of reducing rounds is the only way forward if reform is urgent. The current system is like dragging through molasses.
Three referendums could increase the public’s understanding and involvement in the process, fostering a real sense of ownership.
True, but will voter fatigue set in? Too many referendums could desensitize the public’s engagement.
Let’s face it: either way, politicians are gonna do what they want. Make it 10 referendums, they’ll still twist it their way.
I’m worried if reducing the number lead to hasty, half-baked solutions to complex problems. Sound changes need time.