On Wednesday, Deputy Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai casually dismissed queries from the press about whether the ruling Pheu Thai Party plans to advance a controversial charter amendment aimed at redefining ethical standards for political officeholders. This comes after significant pushback from coalition partners, who seem less than enthused about the initiative. Instead, Phumtham emphasized that the government’s current priorities include addressing severe flooding that has inundated multiple provinces and stimulating the economy. Just yesterday, the government distributed 10,000 baht in cash to 14.5 million vulnerable individuals as part of their economic relief efforts.
When pressed on whether Pheu Thai would retract its charter amendment bill amidst growing criticism, Phumtham, a prominent figure in the ruling party, firmly stated that the issue was not open for discussion. Earlier this week, he mentioned that the party was organizing a meeting with coalition partners to deliberate on their sponsored amendment bill aimed at clearly defining ethical standards for politicians. However, reports suggest that the ruling party may be backpedaling due to staunch opposition from numerous coalition members who view the proposal as self-serving.
On the same day, Deputy Prime Minister and Bhumjaithai leader Anutin Charnvirakul made it clear that his party had never proposed revising the ethical standards issue and saw no necessity to change their stance. His comments were a response to rumors that a major political leader, hinted to be from Pheu Thai, had suggested the amendment. Bhumjaithai executive Korawee Prissananantakul echoed this sentiment, stating that the party would support the charter amendment only if it received public backing through a referendum, while emphasizing that Chapters 1 and 2 of the charter should remain untouched. These chapters are pivotal as they establish Thailand as a single, undivisible kingdom under a democratic regime with the King as head of state and outline royal prerogatives, respectively.
Meanwhile, noted political activist Jatuporn Prompan posited that the ruling party was feeling the heat from both the public and their coalition allies, urging them to drop their charter amendment pursuits. He suggested that Pheu Thai’s true motive behind the proposed charter changes was to avert potential legal repercussions for party leader and Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra. Paetongtarn is currently embroiled in multiple ethics-related controversies, including ownership of shares in the contentious Alpine Golf Club, which stands on land meant for monastic use.
In a related vein, the opposition People’s Party (PP) announced that it is awaiting Parliament President Wan Muhamad Noor Matha’s decision to schedule a debate on their bill aimed at amending the charter to limit the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s (NACC) authority to probe MPs and senators for ethical violations. Currently, the NACC investigates cases and decides whether to pass them on to the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court. According to PP list-MP Natthawut Buaprathum, their bill is intended to safeguard the public interest rather than serve the party’s objectives.
Why does the government always get caught up in these ethical debates? People’s lives are at stake with the flooding!
It’s because the politicians want to protect themselves. They don’t genuinely care about the public.
True, but isn’t it also important to ensure our leaders are ethical? Corruption can ruin any relief efforts.
I get that, but now’s not the time. The flooding should be the top priority.
This amendment is clearly just about protecting Pheu Thai leaders from potential legal trouble. It’s self-serving and everyone knows it.
I disagree. If the amendment passes, it could set clearer ethical standards for all politicians. Isn’t that a good thing?
Only if it’s not twisted to serve the ruling party’s interests. We need impartiality.
Anutin Charnvirakul is right. The ethical standards are already clear. They don’t need changing.
Isn’t it suspicious that Pheu Thai wants to amend the ethics clause while their leader is mired in controversies?
Exactly! This is just a smokescreen to protect them from legal issues.
Or maybe they’re just looking to clarify rules and prevent misunderstandings? It’s not always black and white.
If that’s the case, they should do it transparently and not rush it through amid public outcry.
The flooding is severe. Allocation of funds for relief should be the main priority right now.
So, they handed out 10,000 baht. Will that be enough for the families that lost everything?
I think everyone’s missing the point. Both issues need addressing. Politics and ethics matter as much as flood relief.
This feels like another example of politicians focusing on their own interests rather than the people’s needs.
Absolutely. It’s the same story everywhere, unfortunately.
But aren’t we supposed to hold them accountable? That means scrutinizing their actions closely.
Why is everyone so skeptical? Debate and discussion are part of democracy. If the public rejects the amendment, it won’t pass.
Public referendums would definitely help clear the air, but will the government agree to it?
Given the current backlash, I think they might be compelled to.
The People’s Party’s bill to limit the NACC’s power seems just as self-serving. Why restrict anti-corruption investigations?
Good point. We should be strengthening these bodies, not weakening them.
This is all so tiring. Doesn’t it feel like politicians never have our best interests at heart?
I feel you. But disengagement only makes it worse. We need to keep pushing for transparency.
True. Change only happens when we demand it consistently.
I guess you’re right. It’s just hard to stay optimistic sometimes.
It’s interesting how party coalitions work. One moment they’re together, the next they’re at each other’s throats.
Shows how fragile these alliances are. Everyone’s in it for themselves.
We need more transparency and public involvement in these decisions, full stop.
Absolutely. Citizen engagement is vital for a functioning democracy.
The ethical clauses should be non-negotiable. If politicians have nothing to hide, why would they want to amend them?
Agreed. It looks suspicious, but let’s wait for all the details before rushing to judgment.
Yes, transparency and fair rules benefit everyone in the long run.
Every time there’s a crisis, the government seems to get distracted by politics. We need focus and leadership.