As dawn breaks, a bird glides effortlessly over Democracy Monument, casting its silhouette against the soft hues of a new day. Little did it know, the political landscape below is just as dynamic and unpredictable.
The ruling Pheu Thai Party’s recent reversal on its plan to amend the ethical standards for political officeholders has left observers scratching their heads. Initially, Pheu Thai had proposed changes to the 2017 charter, particularly tweaking Section 160, which lays out the moral prerequisites for becoming a minister. The proposal asserted that ministers must be evidently honest and not embroiled in severe ethical violations.
However, this proposition ran into a brick wall of opposition from the coalition bloc, especially from the Bhumjaithai and United Thai Nation (UTN) parties. Consequently, Pheu Thai’s secretary-general, Sorawong Thienthong, suggested that the party is contemplating retracting the bill for further scrutiny.
The Bangkok Post engaged analysts and representatives from various political factions to gauge whether these section-by-section charter amendments have any chance of success and if the charter rewrite could meet its projected deadline.
Heeding Public Opinion
Pheu Thai list-MP Sutin Klungsang emphasized the importance of public opinion in revising the constitution, a reason behind the party’s decision to pull back on the amendment. To him, this retreat is not an embarrassment but a step towards a more comprehensive rewrite addressing political officeholders’ ethical standards.
“Predicting how long this will take is challenging, especially when the proposal must be put through multiple public referendums,” Sutin explained. He added that a new charter is unlikely to come into effect before the next general election. While section-by-section amendments were initially proposed to address urgent issues, Sutin did not rule out returning to this strategy in the future.
Addressing criticism that the move was self-serving, Sutin insisted it was intended to protect political officeholders and ensure stability. “Perhaps our coalition partners will see eye to eye with us eventually. If they view politicians as representatives of the people, they won’t see this as serving personal gains,” he said.
Internal Turmoil
Despite strong opposition from coalition partners, insiders like a source from the People’s Party (PP) believe Pheu Thai is highly unlikely to pursue section-by-section amendments to avoid creating a rift within the bloc. The PP’s own proposed amendments are also expected to face rejection in parliament, but the party proceeded to highlight perceived flaws in the charter.
“We’re pointing out issues because we see them as problematic. None of the 30 MPs facing ethical allegations have endorsed the bill, demonstrating that we’re not doing it for personal benefit,” the source noted, alluding to an investigation into ethical conduct involving 44 politicians from the now-dissolved Move Forward Party (MFP), many of whom supported a bill to revise the lese majeste law.
According to the source, any comprehensive charter rewrite is unlikely to be completed within three years, partly due to resistance from senators allied with coalition parties. Last week, following Pheu Thai’s about-face, PP list-MP Parit Wacharasindhu announced that the party would hold off on amending the ethical standards of political officeholders.
“We don’t want this issue to be used as an excuse by coalition partners to withdraw support for other proposals we are pushing,” Wacharasindhu said. However, the opposition plans to advocate for six other constitutional changes, including bills to prevent military coups and reform the armed forces.
Public Interest Dispute
UTN deputy leader and list-MP Wittaya Kaewparadai criticized Pheu Thai’s six-point proposal, arguing it had nothing to do with public interest and could incite new conflicts. He recalled the controversial blanket amnesty bill during Yingluck Shinawatra’s administration, which sparked protests and led to the 2014 coup.
“These issues could provoke street protests, though perhaps on a smaller scale. Nonetheless, we shouldn’t underestimate them as they can be divisive. Initially, we can expect a flood of petitions to various agencies,” Wittaya warned, expressing his intention to clarify to his party why he believed the amendment was not in the country’s best interest.
Wittaya also doubted Pheu Thai’s success in amending the charter unless they aligned with the opposition People’s Party, which had a similar bill earlier. He urged the government to honor its commitment to a comprehensive charter rewrite, excluding Chapters 1 and 2.
Referendum Uncertainty
Before Pheu Thai’s U-turn, Nikorn Chamnong, secretary to the special House committee vetting the referendum bill, raised concerns that altering ethical standards for politicians could complicate a charter rewrite. Speaking at an Election Commission forum, he remarked that such changes might influence voter decisions if included in the planned referendum, also noting uncertainty about the Senate’s stance.
The House had amended Section 13 of the Referendum Act to replace the “double majority” rule with a single majority. The amendment passed overwhelmingly with 409 votes before moving to the Senate, which voted 179 to 5 to pass it in the first reading. However, the special Senate committee proposed reinstating the double majority requirement, which will be deliberated upon tomorrow.
According to Nikorn, if the Senate reintroduces the double majority rule, the bill would be stalled for six months before it could be sent back to the House. Such a delay would push back the planned February referendum, potentially intensifying pressures for other charter amendments.
“The fate of the charter rewrite hinges on the planned February referendum,” Nikorn stated.
Political science lecturer Yutthaporn Issarachai from Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University commented that it wouldn’t be surprising if the ruling party didn’t revisit the issue of ethical standards, especially given coalition partners’ disagreements. He emphasized that successful charter amendments require a consensus between the House and the Senate, as well as at least 20% support from the opposition.
“If a major coalition partner like Bhumjaithai doesn’t back the move, it’s the end of the road,” Yutthaporn said. He highlighted the cannabis policy as an example of compromise to maintain coalition unity. “If the Senate disagrees with the House on the referendum bill, it will delay the charter rewrite timeline,” he concluded.
Pheu Thai’s reversal is just another example of politicians being inconsistent and unreliable. They should have stuck to their ethics amendment.
But isn’t it better for them to listen to the public and rethink their approach? Politics should be dynamic, not static.
Listening to the public is fine, but constant U-turns make it seem like they have no clear vision. At some point, they need to take a stand.
Yeah, a flip-flopping government can’t be trusted. Stability is key.
I think the real issue is the coalition bloc’s opposition. Pheu Thai’s hands are tied unless coalition partners agree.
@Sophia Lee: True, coalition dynamics always complicate things. It’s a balancing act, but they need to get better at it.
It’s just political maneuvering. They’ll come back with an even sneakier move next time.
Or maybe they’re genuinely trying to avoid further conflict? Remember the amnesty bill drama?
The 2014 coup was a disaster. If another conflict emerges, it could spiral out of control. Politics should aim for stability, not risks.
True, but still, I think they need to come up with a comprehensive plan and stick to it!
Why do they need such high ethical standards for ministers? Isn’t it more important that they are competent?
Both are important. An ethical but incompetent minister is just as dangerous as a competent but unethical one.
Exactly. We need politicians who are both! This is standard in most countries.
I guess you’re right. Maybe striking a balance between ethics and competence is the solution.
Interesting that Bhumjaithai and UTN are blocking this. Maybe they have skeletons in their closets?
It wouldn’t surprise me. Politics is often less about ideals and more about survival.
Totally. Transparency is the only way to clear up any doubts.
But then, wouldn’t tougher ethical standards expose them if they indeed have skeletons?
Yeah, which is why they’d oppose it in the first place!
This goes to show that coalitions are inherently unstable. How can any significant reform pass in such an environment?
It’s true. Coalitions always have to balance different interests, making big changes hard.
That’s the cost of democracy though. A minority opinion can still influence a majority decision.
But what’s the point if it leads to inaction or watered-down reforms? Sometimes you need strong leadership.
Does anyone else think this whole charter rewrite is just a distraction? They should focus on real issues like the economy.
Everything is connected. Political stability and clear ethical guidelines feed into economic stability.
That’s true. But you also can’t ignore urgent economic issues. It’s a balancing act.
I get it, but right now, the economy should take precedence.
Let’s not forget the double majority rule in the Senate is a huge hurdle. Even if Pheu Thai gets their act together, they still need Senate approval.
Precisely. The Senate can effectively block any meaningful reform if it doesn’t align with their interests.
I think the double majority rule makes sense though. It prevents rash decisions.
Sure, but it also makes it nearly impossible to pass anything significant. There has to be a middle ground.
When will they learn that amending the charter without public backing is doomed to fail? People need more say in these decisions.
Totally agree. Public engagement is key, especially in issues as fundamental as the constitution.
But public referendums are slow and cumbersome. Decisions need to be made faster sometimes.
If it means more legitimacy, then it’s worth the wait.
I found Wittaya Kaewparadai’s comments about potential protests interesting. Are we heading back to the days of political turmoil?
Potentially. People are already frustrated, and any spark could set off new protests.
Let’s hope not. The country needs stability, not more chaos.
Agreed. Stability should be the priority, but let’s see if it can be achieved.
The path forward looks murky at best. They need a definitive plan, like Yutthaporn Issarachai suggested, one that both House and Senate can agree upon.
Yup, consensus is crucial. Without it, we’re just spinning wheels.
It all sounds great, but in reality, politicians rarely compromise. They’ll keep fighting until they achieve personal gains.
Let’s be a bit more optimistic. Some politicians genuinely want to make a difference.