The House committee evaluating four bills aimed at amending the referendum law has decided to modify the timeframe for conducting a referendum on a charter rewrite, revealed Nikorn Chamnong, secretary of the special House committee studying the bills. Initially, the committee agreed that the first referendum round on a charter rewrite would coincide with either a general election or a local election.
Mr. Nikorn announced yesterday that the panel has concluded the referendum will be scheduled no sooner than 60 days before an election day and no later than 150 days after the election. Moreover, the Interior Ministry has proposed that a referendum result should require the support of only one-quarter of those who cast votes, rather than more than 50% of eligible voters.
Mr. Nikorn stated that the vetting committee would consider this proposal as it diverges from the majority requirement endorsed by the four bills. He previously mentioned that these bills should become law by November, with the first of three referendums on the proposed rewrite of the 2017 constitution likely to be held around February.
The panel’s task of reviewing the bills, which passed their first reading on June 18, is expected to be completed by late next month before they proceed to their second and third readings. The bills, seeking to amend nine sections of the Referendum Act 2021, have been tabled separately by the cabinet, the ruling Pheu Thai Party, the opposition Move Forward Party, and the Bhumjaithai Party.
All these bills share the common objective of eliminating the “double majority” requirement under the Referendum Act, advocating instead for a single majority or more than half of the votes cast. Section 13 of the Referendum Act mandates two specific conditions to be met for a referendum result to be binding.
First, more than 50% of eligible voters must participate in the referendum, and secondly, the majority of those who cast ballots must approve it.
Why are they even considering dropping the requirement to only one-quarter of voters? That just seems to dilute the whole democratic process!
I agree. If only a small fraction of voters’ voices matter, it undermines the legitimacy of the referendum results.
But wouldn’t it make it easier to actually get things done? The current system often stalls important reforms.
Exactly, Freya. Sometimes, trying to get over the 50% hurdle is almost impossible, especially with voter apathy.
I think making the threshold lower could actually encourage more people to participate, knowing their vote has a higher chance of making an impact.
But do we really want a charter rewrite based on potentially low participation? It seems risky.
The double majority requirement is there for a reason. It ensures that there’s significant support for change, not just a fleeting majority.
It might be there for a reason, but it can also be a real barrier to necessary progress. Look at how hard it is to pass any reforms.
A barrier, yes, but it’s also a safeguard. We shouldn’t rush changes to something as vital as a constitution.
Couldn’t agree more. The constitution affects everyone, so the higher threshold makes sure it’s a decision that truly represents the majority.
Scheduling the referendum around election times is smart. It ensures a higher voter turnout since people are already going to the polls.
This timeline seems way too rushed. Why can’t they allow more time for public debate and understanding?
Rushed? The process has been going on for months already. How much more time do people need to understand the issues?
Understanding constitutional changes isn’t something everyone can grasp quickly. More time means better informed decisions.
If they don’t finish by November and miss the February deadline, it’s just going to drag on even longer. This needs to be resolved urgently.
Rushing legislative processes usually results in poorly thought-out policies. Quality over speed should be the mantra here.
I’m curious about the impact of the Interior Ministry’s proposal. How would decision-making dynamics change if only a quarter of voters need to support the changes?
Politicians could manipulate smaller, more passionate voter bases to push through controversial amendments. Imagine the chaos.
True. It could also make fringe ideas more mainstream if they can rally enough supporters to meet the lower threshold.
Let’s be honest, most people don’t even completely understand the current constitution. How engaged will they be in a referendum?
That’s why education campaigns are crucial. People need to know what’s at stake and what they’re voting on.
Fair point, Anna. But realistically, how many will actually pay attention to those campaigns?
The panel should seriously consider the long-term implications of these changes. Quick fixes often lead to long-term problems.
I don’t see what the big fuss is about lower requirements. It’s a step towards modernizing the process.
Modernizing is good, but not if it means sacrificing the integrity of our democratic processes. Lowering requirements can backfire.
One-quarter of votes to pass a referendum feels like setting ourselves up for a minority rule situation.
Having a flexible timeline for the referendum gives the public more time to think about what they really want.
Unless the extra time is used to manipulate opinions through media propaganda. Skeptical about how pure this ‘extra time’ scheme is.
Manipulation is always a risk, Zoe, but it’s on us to stay informed and critically assess the information presented.
Changing the referendum threshold could make or break future civic engagement. People might either lose faith or become more active.
There’s no perfect system. What matters is that we stay flexible and open to adjusting rules as society evolves.
Honestly, I don’t care about the technicalities. What I want to know is how will these changes impact me and my community?
That’s the right question, Hannah. The impact on ordinary lives should be the focal point of any constitutional change discussion.