In a move sparked with political intrigue, Chousak Sirinil, the astute deputy leader of the Pheu Thai Party, tossed in a proposal that could stir the pot of the constitutional rewrite saga in Thailand. He urged the government, opposition, and Senate whips to take a collective leap and ask the Constitutional Court to get its judicial hands dirty in determining the number of referendums necessary for a constitutional makeover. This comes right before the Parliament’s scheduled first reading of a slew of charter amendment bills on the calendar for February 13 to 14.
Yesterday saw a convergence of government, opposition, and Senate whips, not for a casual chit-chat, but a strategy session to prepare for the much-anticipated debate. Among the array of bills, while many aim for a few tweaks here and there, two audacious proposals seek a comprehensive constitutional overhaul, thus calling for a referendum. These comprehensive amendments, championed by the ruling party and the main opposition People’s Party, hinge on the crucial question of how many referendums are needed to give them legal wings. Enter the Constitutional Court, the decider of fates, to untangle this riddle.
Chousak was keen-eyed, pointing to Section 210 of the constitution as the gateway for MPs or senators to lodge a request for a judicial review. Whether the petition arrives fashionably early or with dramatic flair post-meeting, it doesn’t make a difference, as these charter amendment bills are already snugly nestled in the parliamentary agenda by President Wan Muhamad Noor Matha.
This whole hullabaloo around referendums isn’t new. It traces back to a thought-provoking 2021 Constitutional Court ruling that emphasized the need for a referendum whenever there’s talk of a new charter. It boldly stated that the constitution, the people’s sacred manifesto, necessitates a public nod before any scribbles for change. However, the court waltzed around specifics, leaving the referendum count in limbo. The pundits in the political arena offer diverging paths: some nod to a two-round tango as just fine, while others feel a three-step jive is the path to assured certainty.
Delving into specifics, the two-step referendum dance opens with a question to the public, almost like proposing a grand adventure – do they wish for a twist in the constitutional tale? Should the public nod in agreement, a second round would finesse the details of the new charter. But the three-round saga commands a more detailed choreography: first, getting a yes or no on the idea of a redo, followed by revisiting Section 256 of the constitution for a drafting assembly, and finally getting a thumbs-up or down for the crafted charter.
The sagacious Chousak underlines that a definitive Constitutional Court decision would cut through the fog of uncertainty like a lighthouse guiding weary ships. It promises peace of mind for MPs and senators who might feel like they’ve been walking on eggshells, fearing potential legal entanglements should referendum ambiguities remain.
As the Bangkok Post relayed, it’s anyone’s guess whether the Pheu Thai Party’s vision or the People’s Party’s dream will step forth as the primary draft. What is certain, though, is the electric anticipation hanging in the air, reminiscent of a storm poised to sweep over the Thai political landscape. It’s not just a battle of words and wits but a definitive moment promising to reshape the nation’s constitutional history. Truly, it’s democracy in its intricate and most tantalizing form.
I think letting the Constitutional Court decide is a wise move. It could bring clarity!
Do you honestly believe that the court will be unbiased? They just follow whoever’s in power!
Maybe, but at least there’s a legal framework to hold them accountable.
The problem isn’t about the number of referendums. The issue is whether the constitution should be rewritten at all. We need to uphold the people’s values.
Easy for you to say, but the people clearly want change. Times have changed, and so should our laws.
Indeed, times change, but core principles should remain constant. Otherwise, we risk instability.
Agree with John. Changes need to be thoughtful and measured, not rushed.
Chousak is just trying to push his party’s agenda. It’s all about power dynamics!
But isn’t that politics in a nutshell? Everyone’s pushing for their own team’s win.
It’s exciting to see this play out. New constitutions can bring fresh ideas and energy!
But they can also lead to chaos if not handled properly. The details matter.
True, but change is always messy. It’s about learning and moving forward.
What’s really profound here is the engagement of so many parties in the discussion, showing a mature democratic process.
Thai politics is always a rollercoaster. Hopefully, this leads to positive reform!
Exactly! And maybe some real progress on people’s issues for once.
I doubt any real change will happen. It’s all for show.
That’s so pessimistic! Sometimes show leads to real results.
I wonder if the people’s voice will truly be heard in all this.
A single referendum should be enough to settle the matter. Overcomplicating it is just ridiculous.
I can see why multiple referendums might be beneficial—they offer checks and balances.
Sure, if you like long, drawn-out processes that delay real change.
Thailand has had a turbulent constitutional history. Let’s hope this time it leads to stability.
Referendums galore and each costing millions! Who’s footing the bill?
The Constitutional Court has too much power as it is. This is a slippery slope.
Chousak’s suggestion is progressive. We should embrace new methodologies in politics.
Referendums or not, the military will probably have the final say.
I think the international community will be watching closely. Let’s see how this plays out.