The Constitutional Court has exerted significant influence over the nation’s governance through its interpretations of the 2017 charter, drafted by a panel appointed by the 2014 coup architects. (Bangkok Post File Photo)
Justice Minister Tawee Sodsong has openly advocated for amending certain constitutional provisions on ethics for political officeholders, arguing that the current definition of “honesty” is ambiguously worded. Tawee, leader of the Prachachart Party, noted that the constitution, in effect for over seven years now, contains several clauses his party believes need revisiting.
Referencing Section 160, which lists the prerequisites for aspiring cabinet ministers, he pointed out its requirement for candidates to be “evidently honest” and free from severe ethical violations. “What precisely does ‘honesty’ entail?” he questioned rhetorically, emphasizing the necessity for clearer guidelines.
Tawee’s remarks come on the heels of the Constitutional Court’s decision on August 14 to oust Srettha Thavisin from the prime ministerial post. The court deemed Srettha’s appointment of former convict Pichit Chuenban as a cabinet minister an ethical breach.
He contended that the powers of independent agencies, although aimed at overseeing the government and combating corruption, need to be more precisely delineated. “Political parties seem to be disbanded too readily under the current constitution,” he remarked.
Last month, the charter court dissolved the Move Forward Party and barred 11 of its senior members from politics for a decade, claiming the party’s proposal to amend the lese-majeste law threatened the constitutional monarchy and national security. This controversial ruling has since reincarnated the opposition as the People’s Party, which continues to champion clearer ethical definitions. Numerous members are among the 44 former Move Forward representatives still under investigation for their stance on lese-majeste law reforms.
Tawee stressed that any amendments to the charter should address a range of issues, including decentralization and citizens’ rights and freedoms, necessitating input from various sectors of society.
However, not everyone is on board with these proposed changes. Somchai Srisutthiyakorn, a former election commissioner, cautioned that amending the charter—especially with regard to ethical standards for politicians and the scope of independent agencies’ power—could backfire spectacularly. He drew a parallel to the controversial blanket amnesty bill pushed by the Pheu Thai Party during Yingluck Shinawatra’s administration. That bill, perceived as an effort to legally clear the name of her brother, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was then living in self-exile, ignited mass protests leading to the 2014 coup.
Somchai underscored that any move to amend the constitution must be undertaken cautiously to avoid igniting similar unrest. “Isn’t it reminiscent of blanket amnesty?” he inquired, alluding to the political turbulence and eventual military coup that followed the bill’s introduction.
Finally, someone talking sense! The term ‘honesty’ is so vague. Politicians can twist it any way they want.
Absolutely. How can you govern a country when the rules are as clear as mud?
Exactly! We need precise definitions to hold people accountable, not flimsy jargon.
But even with precise definitions, politicians will always find loopholes. It’s human nature.
Changing the constitution is a slippery slope. Remember what happened with Thaksin and the coup? History might repeat itself.
Good point, Thomas. Amending laws can be a double-edged sword.
Politics are cyclical. One change may benefit some now but could haunt others later.
Somchai’s comparison to the blanket amnesty is spot on. We must be wary.
Comparing proposed amendments to the amnesty bill is not fair. Tawee is talking about clarity, not pardons.
Agreed, Maya. Getting rid of ambiguity isn’t the same as handing out get-out-of-jail-free cards.
True, but both involve altering core pillars of governance. Risks are similar.
The discussion around decentralization in these amendments is crucial. More power to local governments can only be a good thing.
Local governments can be just as corrupt, if not more so. Decentralization needs checks and balances too.
Absolutely, Steve. But without decentralization, we might never reach those checks and balances.
Exactly. People always blame the central government. Let’s see local governments earn that criticism too!
Independent agencies are overly powerful right now. It’s about time someone reeled them in.
Ethics in politics? Is that even a thing anymore? Most politicians lack integrity entirely.
Without ethics in politics, society is doomed. We’re already seeing signs of decay.
The Constitutional Court’s power needs limitation. No single body should hold that much sway over governance.
Mark my words, any changes to the charter will just result in more chaos and confusion. Better to fix specifics without upheaval.
Seven years and multiple controversies, yet we still have vague terms like ‘honesty.’ Unbelievable!
Amendments or not, we need a comprehensive shift towards transparency in politics.
Pracha chart Party could be pioneers of this shift, but they’re treading on dangerous ground.
It’ll be interesting to see if people accept new constitutional amendments or if we’ll see pushback like before.
Why is nobody talking about the most critical point? Citizen involvement! We need more voices in this debate.
You’re right; citizens should have a more significant say. Laws shouldn’t just come from the top-down.
Beware of involving too many voices. Too many cooks spoil the broth.
But ForwardGaze, those cooks are part of our social fabric. Everyone deserves a say.
Political parties being disbanded too easily? That’s alarming. Democracy is about choices.
The bar for what constitutes a breach seems way too low. Political dissent isn’t supposed to be criminal.
The lese-majeste law is a sensitive topic. We should tread carefully.
That’s no excuse to stifle political freedom. Governments should be open to criticism.
Agree with Narong. Criticism helps democracy thrive. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone.
Will amendments really bring clarity, or just further muddy the waters? Skeptical.
It’s a valid question. Change for the sake of change isn’t helpful.
But without change, we’ll be stuck with the same ambiguities forever.
Scepticism is healthy. Let’s hope for transparent processes during these discussions.
Srettha’s case shows the need for clearer guidelines. Ambiguity cannot be the downfall of our leaders.
Are clearer guidelines a panacea, or are we just hoping for miracles?
The trick is in avoiding repressive new rules while achieving clarity. It’s a tough balance.
Reforming charter isn’t just about ethics. It’s about making Thailand a true democracy.
True democracy? I feel that’s a long way off. We’re still dealing with old power struggles.
Each amendment should be seen as a step forward. It’s a journey, not a flip of a switch.