The Senate has come to an agreement in principle on the referendum bill that the House of Representatives recently passed. However, this consent didn’t come without its share of debates and disagreements. The main point of contention was the bill’s pivotal change: replacing the double majority requirement with a single majority, essentially needing just over half of the votes cast to pass. By the end of the extensive Tuesday deliberation in the Upper House, the Senate voted 179 to 5, with three senators opting to abstain, to pass the bill in its first reading.
A notable voice of dissent was Senator Phisit Aphiwatthanaphong, who was particularly vocal about his opposition to dropping the double majority requirement for the charter referendum. To shed some light, the double majority refers to an important condition enshrined in the Referendum Act. This stipulation requires two key criteria to be fulfilled for a referendum result to hold any binding power.
Firstly, the act insists that over 50% of eligible voters must participate in the referendum. Secondly, a majority of those who cast ballots must approve the referendum. For example, if around 10 million people decide to cast their votes, only 5 million would need to support the referendum for it to pass. But here’s the kicker: this number barely represents 10% of the 52 million eligible voters across the nation, a figure Mr. Phisit emphatically pointed out.
“For those who believe that the double majority requirement will slow down the charter rewrite process, I posit that there’s no real urgency to rush it. What’s crucial is to ensure that the proposal complies with the law,” Senator Phisit argued convincingly.
Adding to the pool of perspectives, Senator Prapart Pintobtang highlighted another angle. He argued that the double majority requirement, a rule also practiced in other countries, has acted as a demotivator for many voters. This condition, according to him, has dissuaded a significant number of voters from participating in the ballot.
Meanwhile, Senator Tewarit had an intriguing suggestion for Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra: revise the cabinet’s resolution to incorporate double-barrelled questions about the referendum. His suggestion aimed to address the growing concerns surrounding the clarity and legal framework of the referendum process.
With the clash of these strong viewpoints and the tension of balancing prompt progression with fidelity to democratic principles, the debate around the referendum bill continues to engage both senators and the public. The next phases of this legislative saga will undoubtedly set the stage for how the nation navigates its democratic path forward.
I think the single majority is a bad idea. It could lead to decisions that don’t reflect the true will of the people.
But isn’t it more democratic to go with the majority of those who actually vote?
The problem is that voter turnout is often low. So the ‘majority’ might not truly represent the majority of citizens.
Don’t forget, low voter turnout could be a sign of general satisfaction with the status quo. Isn’t that a valid consideration?
Double majority requirements are out of date. They make it too hard to pass important changes.
Isn’t it supposed to be hard to change the constitution? That’s kind of the point, to make sure it’s a well-thought-out decision.
True, but there should also be a balance. Not all changes are radical; some are necessary updates.
Exactly! Bureaucracy often gets in the way of progress.
Senator Phisit is just stalling progress. The double majority is a relic of the past.
Stalling or ensuring that changes have genuine nationwide support? There’s merit to both sides.
Nationwide support is important, but so is not being paralyzed by procedural hurdles.
Phisit seems more interested in maintaining power structures than democratic engagement.
Can someone explain why the double majority is considered so essential?
It ensures that a change isn’t just passed by a small, potentially unrepresentative group of voters.
Basically, it makes sure that both enough people care about the issue and that those who do care are in the majority.
Changing to single majority is a no-brainer. Less bureaucracy, more action.
Be careful what you wish for. Quick changes aren’t always good changes.
True, but endless debates can be just as harmful.
I’m confused about Senator Tewarit’s double-barrelled question suggestion. How would that work?
It means adding two questions to the referendum: one for the main issue and another for a supplementary or clarifying question.
Honestly, no system is perfect. But we need a method that motivates more people to vote.
Incentives for voting would help, whether it’s a single or double majority.
So many people talking about democracy, but how many actually participate in it? That’s the real issue.
Agreed. A stronger civic education system might help resolve some of this apathy.
People don’t vote because they feel their vote doesn’t matter. Making it simpler might change that.
Simpler how? Just saying ‘simpler’ isn’t enough. We need specifics.
Let’s not forget, the richer, more educated people are the ones who usually benefit the most from political changes.
The Senate’s overwhelming vote in favor seems fishy to me. Are they really representing our interests?
Good point. I wonder how many voters know what their senators are actually doing.
I trust Senator Phisit. He seems to have the nation’s best interest at heart.
Blind trust in any politician is dangerous. Always question motives and actions.
True, but he has been consistent in his views. Consistency matters too.