The ruling Pheu Thai Party is gearing up for a pivotal meeting with its coalition partners to advocate for a new constitution. This move comes in response to the recent Senate vote on Monday, which saw the retention of the double majority requirement needed to pass a referendum on a new supreme law. The Upper House voted 164-21, with nine abstentions, to maintain this stringent threshold. The Senate committee vetting the charter referendum bill also backed the decision.
Prime Minister’s Office Minister Chousak Sirinil announced that a joint committee is likely to be formed to resolve the differing opinions between the Lower and Upper Houses regarding the requisite majority size for passing a referendum on the government’s proposed rewrite of the 2017 constitution. However, this development might stretch the timeline for a national referendum, tentatively scheduled for February 2 next year, coinciding with the elections for provincial administrative organization members.
Given this scenario, Pheu Thai will convene with coalition party leaders to chart out the necessary steps forward. Mr. Chousak mentioned that some coalition parties are suggesting amending Section 256 of the constitution to facilitate the establishment of a charter-drafting body. “If a new constitution is drafted in this manner and passes through parliament, it can be promptly subjected to a referendum,” added Mr. Chousak, emphasizing that amending the charter aligns with the government’s policy framework.
During the Senate debate on Monday, Nikorn Chamnong, a minority member of the Senate committee vetting the bill, voiced his opposition to reverting to a double majority. He argued that this requirement complicates the process of approving a new charter via referendum. “Considering the government’s remaining three-year term, it seems unlikely that a people’s constitution will be enacted. Holding the charter referendum alongside the provincial administrative organization elections on February 2 next year would cut costs,” Mr. Nikorn suggested.
Following Monday’s vote, the Senate’s next course of action is to send the bill back to the House of Representatives. If the House concurs with the Senate’s amendments, the bill can be forwarded to the prime minister for royal endorsement. Conversely, if the House disagrees, a joint House-Senate committee will be formed to reconcile their differences. Should the Lower and Upper Houses fail to reach a consensus, the bill would be suspended for 180 days. Subsequently, if more than half of the House of Representatives’ members still support the bill, it would then be sent for royal approval. Observers note that this process is laborious and time-consuming.
The double majority entails two critical conditions that must be met for a referendum result to be binding. Firstly, over 50% of eligible voters must participate in the referendum. Secondly, the majority of those voters must approve the proposal.
In previous discussions, some minority senators raised concerns regarding irregularities in the Senate committee’s decision-making process, fearing potential delays to the initial referendum. Senator Nantana Nantavaropas, a committee member, suggested that the Senate committee’s vote might have been influenced by external factors. Meanwhile, Senator Chattrawat Saengphet, the committee chairman, dismissed these criticisms, asserting that the decision was not intended to delay the bill.
The road ahead for Thailand’s constitutional reform is fraught with challenges and complexities. As the Pheu Thai Party and its coalition partners strategize on amending the constitution, the nation watches closely, hoping for a resolution that balances democratic principles with practical governance. The upcoming months will be pivotal, determining whether the aspirations for a new charter will come to fruition or face further obstacles.
The double majority requirement is such a farce! It just keeps power in the hands of a select few and stifles democratic progress.
I totally agree. It’s like the Senate is afraid of real change. Why can’t we just have a straightforward referendum?
Because straightforward referendums can be easily manipulated by populist agendas. The double majority ensures wider consensus.
But Jonas, isn’t it ironic that the broader consensus often doesn’t even include the voices of marginalized communities? The system is rigged!
Don’t forget that the current constitution was pushed through under military rule. Reform is necessary!
Necessary? More like another power grab by Pheu Thai. They just want to rewrite the rules to suit themselves.
If a new constitution can really be passed quickly through a referendum, why is there so much opposition to simplifying the process?
Because simplifying the process might compromise the checks and balances needed. Quick isn’t always better.
True, Kavi, but the current process is intentionally convoluted to maintain the status quo.
People always talk about democracy, but what’s the point if it’s not effective or inclusive for ordinary citizens?
The double majority makes sense to me. It prevents any one group from dominating just because of a majority vote.
But Tham, this double majority also means minority parties can block essential reforms. That’s not democratic either.
Everything has its pros and cons, but at least with a double majority, there’s an element of compromise and negotiation.
I see your point, Mai Lee, but the alternative could lead to rule by the majority without considering minority rights.
Did anyone actually pay attention to Nikorn Chamnong’s idea? Combining the referendum with local elections could really save a lot of money.
Isn’t it suspicious that some senators claim external factors influenced the committee’s decision? Just who is pulling the strings here?
Definitely something shady going on. The decision reeks of political manipulation.
Eh, David, this stuff happens in every government. Nothing new.
I’m more worried about whether any of this will actually make life better for us in the countryside.
True, the whole debate seems so removed from everyday realities. Will a new constitution change anything for the locals?
Exactly, urbanThinker! It’s hard to care about the constitution when you’re worried about your next meal.
I find it ironic that the very people who implemented the current rigid system are now the ones complaining about it.
Will reworking Section 256 really solve the problem or just push it down the road?
The real issue is the lack of trust in the entire process. People don’t feel their voices are heard.
Couldn’t agree more. Until the process is transparent, people will remain skeptical.
Can we just modernize already? Constitutional reforms are long overdue.
The more you complicate these reforms, the more ordinary people lose interest and faith in the government.
And that, ThaiCitizen1990, might be the point. Keep the masses disengaged so they can’t challenge the elite.
Observer123, that’s pretty cynical but probably true!
A joint committee to resolve differences could work, but it might also just stall things further.
We need more representation from diverse backgrounds if we’re going to draft a fair constitution.
Absolutely! The current committee lacks representation from marginalized groups.
I just hope whatever changes are made, they actually listen to the people’s needs.
Interesting times ahead. Constitution reform in Thailand has always been a turbulent affair.