In the bustling corridors of Parliament, an intriguing saga unfolds as Wan Muhamad Noor Matha, the President of the Parliament, finds himself at the epicenter of a formidable constitutional conundrum. Monday witnessed him standing firm, asserting that his decision to place bills suggesting sweeping transformations to the constitution on the legislative agenda—absent a prior referendum—was within the bounds of the law. It’s like a night at the opera, with political intrigue taking center stage and the simmering tension promising unexpected crescendos.
The narrative hinges on these bills, a stack of legislative proposals that pundits claim teeter dangerously close to redrawing the entire constitutional map. Slated to make their debut in parliamentary reading on Thursday and Friday, these are no ordinary bills. Thanks to a precise 2021 edict from the Constitutional Court, they demand a referendum for any budding new charter. Yet, in a delightful twist often found in tales of governance, the court left a glaring gap—saying not a word about how many rounds of referendums are needed.
Our protagonist, Mr. Wan, portrayed the astute politician as he embarked on a diplomatic journey, consulting factions across the political spectrum—from the government and the opposition to the Senate whips and cabinet delegates. To his tactical delight, the majority consensus was in favor of pressing on with the debate, referendum or not. In a deft move, he invoked a past court ruling to bolster his rationale, specifically to pave the path for the charter-drafting assembly, the future architects of the rewritten constitution.
He turned to the assembly with a proposition of fiscal prudence, “I’ve set these matters on the table for debate to conserve our budget. Should Parliament give these bills the nod to move forward, I’ll then pause proceedings to potentially invite the Election Commission to organize a referendum. But imagine this—if we hold a referendum first, and it passes in public favor only to be vetoed by Parliament, then we have squandered three billion baht on a fruitless exercise,” he reasoned, confidently weaving fiscal prudence into his argument.
But in this grand performance, no character moves unnoticed. A subplot emerges where a collective of 40 MPs or senators can rally, motioning for a fresh ruling from the Constitutional Court, focusing on the referendum’s necessity. Earlier that day, an influential voice, Pheu Thai Party’s deputy leader, Chousak Sirinil, hinted at another motion poised to stir the pot, querying the number of referendums needed for a charter rewrite amid the looming debate.
Anticipation dances in the chambers, as whispers circulate of two pivotal charter proposals from the leading party and its main adversary, the People’s Party. These proposals look to overhaul the charter significantly, making referendums all but mandatory. Mr. Chousak remains steadfast, anticipating the first readings to proceed on schedule. Yet, he concedes the possibility of an intervention motion cropping up, courtesy of the 31st parliament regulation demanding a backing of at least 40 members for passage.
He maintains that a joint appeal from government, opposition, and Senate whips for a Constitutional Court ruling could still diffuse fears of flouting the 2021 court decree. Amid the murmurs of concern among senators and some political factions, this maneuver remains in political limbo without a definitive decision from the whips.
In a dramatic flourish akin to a plot twist, a charter rewrite advocacy group stormed the Senate with a heartfelt plea on Monday, urging the Senators to champion the charter rewrite bills boldly, sans referendum concerns. With the constitution requiring the endorsement of one-third of the senators to push through an amendment bill, the stakes are high. The letter, a physical embodiment of their cause, was received by Sen Pist Apiwattanpong, leaving the Senate to ponder the weight of its next move in this unfolding political drama.
As we gaze at this rich tapestry of constitutional intrigue, we wait with bated breath for the next act in this gripping legislative saga—a tale woven with threads of power, prudence, and political maneuvering on a grand scale.
I believe Wan Muhamad Noor Matha’s strategy of pushing for debate before a referendum is quite clever. He’s maneuvering through a legal loophole quite skillfully. It’s not often you see such political acumen.
But is it really clever or just reckless? By sidelining the referendum, isn’t he undermining democratic processes?
True, it’s a balancing act. But considering the cost implications he mentioned, saving three billion baht isn’t a small feat. Perhaps, budget constraints are pushing this bold move.
It’s ironic to speak of fiscal prudence when the potential of bypassing democratic protocols is at stake. Isn’t it a bigger risk to democracy than to the budget?
Democracy aside, it’s just politics as usual. These ‘stunts’ are nothing new. It’s about who plays chess better.
You’re not wrong there. Politics is indeed a game of chess. Yet, how long can they keep at this before the public demands accountability?
This is just another ploy to keep the status quo intact. No referendums mean the same people staying in power!
Sure, but sometimes the status quo might just be the safer option. Changing the constitution isn’t like changing a light bulb.
If we always think like that, progress will never happen! When do we push for change if not now?
The economic argument seems misplaced. Sure, saving on referendums sounds good, but at what cost? Public trust is invaluable.
Exactly. He might be trying to keep the economy intact, but without trust, there is no long-term stability.
This whole debate setting reeks of political maneuvering. I hope the Senate brings the necessary balance to this power play.
Interesting that the courts left those gaps about the number of referendums. Seems they’d rather politicians like Wan fill in the blanks.
Isn’t it always how the legal system works? Ambiguity fuels these meetings. Keeps our lawmakers in business!
No matter the strategy, as long as the outcome is a more democratic and fair constitution, I’m all for it!
That’s a very naive point of view. You trust too much in the system without acknowledging its flaws.
Maybe, but without hope and trust, why even have systems? We might as well give them the benefit of the doubt.
Isn’t deciding without a referendum just another method of bypassing the people? Feels more like an opera than a democratic process.
The opera metaphor fits. It’s dramatized, but every act builds to the finale. Will the public be part of the final act?
I find his reasoning of avoiding waste (billions of baht) quite conscientious, but the gravity of the decision can’t be weighed in currency alone.
Whether one referendum or ten, as long as we prioritize sustainability in any new constitution drafts, I’m satisfied.
As a budding journalist, this entire process has me questioning: does media sensationalize political ‘intrigue’ more than it happens?
What’s the big deal? Isn’t any engagement with the constitution a positive step for political maturity?