The historic Democracy Monument, often a backdrop to pivotal moments in governance, saw its picturesque median strips adorned with colorful flowers. Yet amidst this tranquil setting, political discussions were anything but serene. On an otherwise ordinary Thursday morning, a noteworthy joint sitting of MPs and senators was supposed to deliberate crucial charter amendment bills. Lo and behold, it was adjourned due to an unforeseen—and perhaps deliberate—lack of quorum. A curious absenteeism from MPs aligned with the ruling Pheu Thai Party was not only conspicuous but highly strategic.
The morning held promise, beginning at 9:30 a.m., under the guidance of Parliament President Wan Muhamad Noor Matha. Yet, a somber realization hit when a quorum check unveiled only 204 parliamentarians gracing their seats. We were witnessing governmental theater, where the combined presence of MPs and senators fell short of the required figures – half out of 500 MPs and 200 senators to be precise.
And so, Mr. Wan, with the wisdom of Solomon and the weariness of Sisyphus, called for an adjournment until 9:30 a.m. the following Friday. The focal point of this parliamentary session? Charter amendment bills subtly backed by People’s Party (PP) MP Parit Wacharasindhu and Pheu Thai’s own Wisut Chainaroon. They ambitiously aimed to tweak Section 256 of the constitution to create a charter-drafting assembly, tasked with penning a brand-new constitution.
But as if in choreographed defiance, members of the Bhumjaithai Party—stoic as a Greek chorus—staged a walkout, a silent protest against what they argued was a constitutionally questionable process. Their grievance mirrored a 2021 Constitutional Court decree, which mandated a public referendum as the prelude to any such drafting process.
Outspoken as ever, Bhumjaithai Party leader Anutin Charnvirakul proclaimed their compliance not as obstruction but as deference to the court’s authority. According to 2021’s judicial sentiment, any amendment of the entire charter demands public approval twice over — an initial nod to start, followed by a popular thumbs-up for the final draft’s content.
From the shadows emerged Senator Premsak Piayura, penning an urgent motion appealing for a fresh ruling on parliament’s powers to amend sans referendum. Debate flared hotter than chilies in a nam prik pla, as dialogue volleyed between impassioned MPs and watchful senators.
Pakornwut Udompipatskul, a PP list-MP, calmly countered the motion, saying only the parliament president could slot such a motion onto the agenda. He was resolute in his belief that the constitutional amendment wasn’t just talk; it was imperative to validate the parliamentarians’ authority.
“If they shy away from their duties, why position themselves as the people’s advocates?” he challenged rhetorically, words cutting through silence like a high-tide wave against rock.
Persistently, Mr. Premsak requested yet another quorum check, exposing the drastic drop: only 180 parliamentarians recorded in attendance. Mr. Parit, perplexed, pointed to arithmetic as his ally. With Pheu Thai’s 140 MPs alongside his party’s 140, having merely 180 present made scant sense.
Defensive yet assured, Pheu Thai MP Julapun Amornvivat argued for the right of MPs to abstain from quorum checks. Yet, Mr. Parit, leveraging logic as his lighthouse, countered: since Pheu Thai proposed the bill, their presence was paramount.
However, the strategy unfurled by Pheu Thai was as transparent as it was calculated. Fearing their bill’s premature demise through judicial contention, the decision to skip the session was less absence and more insurance policy. Supporting Mr. Premsak’s motion for a court ruling first aligned with their strategy.
“It was strategic non-participation,” remarked Pheu Thai’s Sutin Klungsang with all the vibrancy of a stage whisper, “to adjourn the meeting while maintaining parliamentary momentum with the bill.”
With a beady eye and sharper tongue, Somkid Chueakong, deputy secretary-general to the prime minister, chastised the PP for their wilful advance through the legislative minefield. Aligning with Mr. Premsak, Pheu Thai emphasized that the waiting game wasn’t indefinite, realistically proposing a swift two-week judicial turnaround.
“Persistence ahead promises a cliff,” Mr. Somkid warned with metaphoric menace, yet suggested that patience, sweetened with possibility, could yield progress post-ruling. In this landscape of politics, where allegiances sway as quickly as tides, only time and strategy shall tell whose vision will persevere.
Pheu Thai’s absence was so obviously planned. They’re just scared that their bill will get nowhere if it faces judicial scrutiny first.
But isn’t it smart to play it safe? If a court ruling could sink their bill, why risk it?
Sure, but isn’t democracy about standing firm and fighting for what’s right? This feels more like running away.
Running away or strategic retreat? There’s a fine line, and politics often requires the latter.
It’s fascinating how the Bhumjaithai Party uses the Constitution as a shield. They’re sticking to the constitutional clauses like glue, but isn’t that just a way to delay reforms they don’t like?
But isn’t it good to follow laws and the Constitution? If we start bending rules, where does it stop?
True, but rigidity can stall progress. Sometimes interpretations need to evolve, especially when laws impede democratic development.
Evolving interpretations sound like a slippery slope, though. How do we ensure those in power don’t just twist laws for personal gain?
Just another example of why parliamentary systems are a joke. They adjourn meetings over quorum issues? It’s all theater!
Come on, blatant nihilism isn’t helpful. Parliamentary systems work in many places, issues like these are part of democratic dialogue.
Democratic dialogue that doesn’t achieve anything, you mean. The world needs systems that work, not endless debates.
Huge respect to Anutin for sticking to the law. Those rules were set for a reason, and they protect us from rushed changes!
Sure, but aren’t those very rules being used to block evolution? What if change is critical?
It’s frustrating to see leaders just not showing up. How do they expect to get anything done?
Politics has always involved gamesmanship, son. Patience and strategy are key, especially in high-stakes situations.
I think Pheu Thai’s move was brilliant. Avoiding confrontation before the court’s decision might actually help them steer the amendment through in the long run.
The Monarchy’s becoming a stage for modern political battles. How the tables have turned in the dance of governance.
Parit’s point about arithmetic is solid. Where were the MPs? Seems like more than mere strategy, possibly discord within the ranks?
Honestly, it’s all about saving face and delaying progress. The Pheu Thai Party’s just buying time while waiting for a miracle.
Or, they’re giving time for a more thorough public discourse. Democracy should cater to patience.
Why is a referendum needed twice? Seems like excessive hurdles for genuine reforms.
Two votes ensure changes reflect the people’s broad consensus. Especially for something as important as the Constitution.
Honestly, I’m just tired of hearing about these endless political theatrics. Just get on with it and make real changes!
It’s like a game of chess, each move is calculated and fraught with implications. Such is the nature of governance.
Why can’t we have both change and respect for the law? Can’t politicians balance between reform and adherence to democracy?
It’s about the interpretation of what democracy truly entails. Is following the law an aspect of it, or is change the essence?
Why does it always feel like Thailand’s political sagas are endlessly cyclical?
The constitutional debate is significant—it reflects broader global trends of nationalism versus progressivism.
Was it really necessary to decorate Democracy Monument with flowers when the real problem lies in the halls of power? Such a distraction!
The walkout by Bhumjaithai was expected. Everyone’s playing safe, nobody wants to poke the judiciary bear until they have to.
Is true public participation realized when powerful parties can just avoid crucial sessions on a whim?
Pheu Thai’s move is a slap in the face to voter trust. We elected them to show up and act, not play strategic games causing delays.