The Senate has emerged victorious in the intricate dance of negotiations concerning the referendum prerequisites needed to amend the Thai constitution. A climactic vote held by a harmonious yet occasionally contentious joint House-Senate committee leaned favorably towards the illustrious Senate’s stance, supporting the so-called “double majority” rule. This decisive outcome, sealed with a precise vote tally, secures the Senate’s preferred stipulation.
However, as the dust settles, the political choreography is far from over. The prospect of seeing constitutional amendments through before the government’s term ceases in 2027 is now rather bleak, as if the idea itself were drifting into the realm of impossibility.
The “double majority” requirement, a formidable agent enshrined within the revered pages of the Referendum Act, sets forth a dual mandate. For a referendum result to be binding, it mandates not only that more than half of the eligible voting populace must partake in the electoral festivity but also that a minimum of 50% of those diligent voters must signal their approval. Only then does the referendum wield the weight of the law.
In contrast, the House—exhibiting a simpler, elegantly unadorned outlook—advocates for a straightforward majority. This proposed methodology would see a referendum succeed should half of those who cast ballots give a hearty nod of approval, the turnout notwithstanding. Some adventurous Members of Parliament even flirt with the notion of a “one and a half majority” rule, an earnest endeavor to chart a middle course.
When the joint committee congregated in earnest deliberation this past Wednesday, the tally came to a thrilling close at 13 votes in support versus 9 in opposition, with an enigmatic trio opting to abstain. This outcome effectively retains the rule that orchestrated the chorus of the 2017 constitutional ensemble.
Concentration now shifts toward endeavors to reshape the Referendum Act, wherein a draft amendment bill that valiantly upholds the double-majority principle is poised to encounter robust resistance from the House of Representatives. In such an impasse, the legislative symphony pauses for a compulsory 180-day “cooling off period,” a hiatus designed to defuse tensions and provide ample time for deeper reflection. During this interval, the bill languishes, the ink undisturbed, in legislative limbo.
The implication is stark: the chances of witnessing the birth of constitutional amendments within the lifetime of the current Pheu Thai-led administration dwindle nearly to nil. It’s as though the prospect itself has receded, much like a mirage fading into the arid expanse of political reality.
Senator Krit Uawong, eloquent spokesman for the joint committee, acknowledges the journey’s next chapter and outlines that the aftermath of Wednesday’s pivotal vote will proceed to another meeting for official endorsement on December 4th. Shortly thereafter, on December 6th, the bill on the Referendum Act is set to embark on yet another leg of its saga, being submitted for consideration with all eyes—both hopeful and skeptical—eagerly watching.
This double majority rule seems like a deliberate move to make it harder for real change to happen in Thailand’s political landscape.
Exactly, Emma. It’s like they set the rules so once they have power, they never have to let go.
But isn’t it important to make sure the majority is really on board before making big constitutional changes? It’s not all bad.
It ensures stability, but at the cost of progress. Democracy shouldn’t be stagnant!
I’m glad the Senate is sticking to its guns. Too much change can lead to chaos.
But sticking to the old ways can lead to stagnation or oppression. There’s a fine line.
Compromise should be key. Neither extreme works in the long run.
The ‘one and a half majority’ almost sounds like a joke. How would that even work?
Probably just another way to complicate things further. Simplicity can be powerful, though.
True, simplicity reduces confusion and avoids manipulation through complexity.
It’s meant to balance things out, taking a bit from both sides. Maybe not practical, but worth considering.
No surprise it ended 13-9-3. Politicians love their abstentions, don’t they?
Abstaining is just a way to avoid taking responsibility. They should make a clear stand!
In fairness, sometimes issues are too complex for a simple yes or no.
Hard to see any real amendments happening before 2027 with these obstacles in place.
Which might just be the point. Delay, delay, delay until no one cares anymore.
Political patience? Or just political impatience? I guess we’ll find out.
The cooling-off period feels like a necessary step, even though it slows progress.
Necessary maybe, but why 180 days? Feels excessive.
It’s about promoting thoughtful reflection, but could be seen as dragging feet.
All this constitution talk is so boring! When will something exciting actually happen?
The reframing of the Referendum Act is crucial. Looking forward to what happens December 6th.
It’s all politics as usual. Power structures resist change to maintain the status quo.
I hope the Thai people push for more transparency in these processes.
Yes, transparency can really empower citizens and improve democracy overall.
Anyone else think this makes Thailand look more unstable to foreign investors?
It might not be in Thailand’s immediate interest, but long-term democratic stability should attract investors.
The ‘double majority’ ensures that not just the vocal few get to make decisions. That’s important.
Does anyone know how other countries handle constitutional amendments? Curious about comparison.
I believe the US requires a two-thirds majority in Congress, then ratification by the states.