In the world of political theatrics, there’s often a fray, but in the case of Thailand’s recent political shenanigans, it appears the show must go on without a hitch. Government harmony stayed resolute, despite Bhumjaithai Party’s audacious decision to push for the disputed double-majority rule in the charter amendment referendum. This daring move stirred the pot with other coalition players, but according to Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, there’s no need to mend fences.
“Let the parliamentary process do its thing, why don’t we,” says Ms. Paetongtarn, exuding a confident nonchalance. “Even within the same party, not everyone shares the same brainwave. It’s water under the bridge. We’re still in this together, come what may,” she stated after the coalition and the main opposition, the People’s Party, collectively decided to give the referendum bill, saturated with the double majority rule, a big thumbs down this past Wednesday.
The baton had been passed to the House of Representatives to cast its vote after the Senate’s previous deliberation. Most senators had given their nod to this double-majority requirement on Tuesday, a stipulation demanding that over half the voters needed to participate in the referendum and of those participating, a majority had to give their nod of approval.
Proponents in the Senate were firm believers that the double majority was the golden standard for such a momentous decision, particularly when altering the national constitution. But skeptics in the House of Representatives argued it would make referendums an uphill battle and instead floated the idea of a single majority, where any winning number would suffice.
The bicameral debate had seen its fair share of twists and turns. A joint committee with members from both Houses tried to quell the friction, yet the Senate, determined as ever, saw its double majority creed prevail. On Wednesday, however, the House dramatically dismissed the bill by a resounding vote — 326 ‘no’s to 61 ‘yes’s, with a duo of abstentions.
Those pushing back against the bill included several coalition titans: Pheu Thai, United Thai Nation, Democrat, Prachachart, Kla Dharm, and Chartpattana parties. Even the opposition, with the likes of PP, Thai Sang Thai, and Palang Pracharath, joined in on the rejection spree. Bhumjaithai stood relatively isolated with their 59 MPs eyeing support, alongside a minimal crew from Thai Sang Thai contributing their few votes.
With both legislative chambers at loggerheads, the bill finds itself relegated to the proverbial parliamentary freezer for a mandatory cooling-off phase of 180 days. Pending this period, and should the House persist with its single-majority preference, the bill will make its regal way for the King’s endorsement, thus enshrining it into law.
Amid this legislative limbo, the next intriguing puzzle piece is the number of referendums on the horizon for any charter amendments. The Constitutional Court penciled in three referendums: an initial one questioning citizens on a charter revamp, another probing the fate of Section 256 relating to setting up a drafting committee, and a third for gauging public support for inaugurating a new charter.
Yet, playing the tune of pragmatism, the People’s Party is in dialogue with Parliament President Wan Muhammad Noor Matha. The goal? To trim down the referendums to a neat double-bill and expedite the charter crafting process before the current governmental body calls it a wrap.
Why is everyone making a fuss over the double majority rule? It seems perfectly reasonable to set high standards for constitutional changes.
Maybe because it makes it nearly impossible to pass anything. It’s almost like the system is rigged to keep things the same.
Or maybe it’s to ensure stability and prevent rash decisions that could harm the country.
Both sides have valid points, but isn’t it more democratic to listen to the majority rather than a select few politicians?
Exactly, if most people don’t agree, why push through a change? It should be hard to change something as important as the constitution.
Paetongtarn Shinawatra seems too laid back about this. The stability of the government is at risk!
I think she’s right to stay calm. Panicking doesn’t help anyone and it shows she’s confident in their strategy.
Confidence isn’t always a good thing if it’s misplaced. What if they’re not as stable as she thinks?
True, but that’s politics for you. Sometimes you have to exude confidence to rally your supporters.
This double-majority rule debate is just a distraction. Real issues are being ignored by the media.
What do you think the real issues are then? Seems like the constitution is pretty important.
Things like poverty, education, and healthcare are being swept under the rug while they argue about this.
Why did the People’s Party not support the bill? Even if some coalitions are against it, why didn’t they stand by Bhumjaithai?
Because it’s political suicide! Associating with a controversial bill can hurt their image more than help it.
Exactly. Politics is all about survival, not following what’s right or wrong.
Interesting how the House rejected it overwhelmingly. Shows a divide between the legislative chambers.
That’s not surprising. The Senate tends to have different priorities than the House.
I wonder if this could lead to more tension within the government.
I can’t decide if the People’s Party is being sensible or are they just afraid of change? They seem hesitant to support anything.
I think this whole debate is just an example of how democracy can be so messy and ineffective at times.
Sure, but it’s still better than authoritarian rule where one person makes all the decisions.
Democracy might be slow, but it’s designed to protect the interests of the people.
These politicians need to stop acting like children. Are they really representing us or just playing games in Parliament?
Referendums sound great, but they’re as expensive as getting draft copies printed on gold leaf! Shouldn’t there be a limit on spending for them?
Exactly! The money could be better spent on public services.
Let the people speak, but make sure their money talks too. All referendum costs must be justified.
Is it me, or does Bhumjaithai just love stirring the pot? They always seem to be in the heart of political controversies.
With the constitutional court pushing for three referendums, they might just be biting off more than they can chew!
True, the process alone might exhaust public patience before any real change happens.
I don’t trust any of these politicians to make the right decision on the constitution. It’s all a big mess.
If the House and the Senate can’t agree now, imagine the chaos 180 days from now. Any bets on what’ll happen next?