As the political winds shift in Thailand, the anticipated February referendum on constitutional amendments seems increasingly unlikely. This referendum, a vital step toward potential changes in the current constitution, has been losing steam among key political factions. The clamor for a charter rewrite, once the lifeblood of election pledges, now seems to be going the way of the dodo.
Rewind to last year’s charged election rallies, where various political parties brandished their commitment to constitutional reform like a badge of honor. No party was more outspoken than the People’s Party (PP), formerly known as the Move Forward Party (MFP). Their goal? To challenge Thailand’s status quo by dramatically transforming the constitutional landscape. The MFP was ambitious, listing bold promises including the dismantling of independent bodies like the Constitutional Court, blamed for dissolving its predecessor, the Future Forward Party, due to a loan controversy involving its leader, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.
The MFP didn’t stop there. It aimed to rewrite the constitution entirely, targeting foundational pillars, specifically chapters 1 and 2 of the 2017 constitution, which regard Thailand as a unified monarchy with royal prerogatives. This charter was ushered in by the National Council for Peace and Order, the same body that brought Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha to power following the 2014 coup—the coup that dethroned a Pheu Thai-led administration.
Not surprisingly, Pheu Thai, battled-hardened against the remnants of martial rule, was eager for amendments. Concord among the more conservative parties and the NCPO’s sympathizers came with the caveat that the proposed changes steered clear of controversy. But political appetites have dimmed, save for PP’s persistent advocacy, since the ascent of the Srettha Thavisin government. Despite MFP’s adamant stance on the non-negotiable lese majeste law amendment, the fervor for rewriting the charter has waned.
The drive for charter amendment won’t be easily dismissed, as it remains a sworn commitment of both PP and Pheu Thai. A parliamentary declaration enshrines this promise, compelling the government to take action. MFP’s previous drumming of lese majeste reform cost them dearly, leading to their disbandment by the Constitutional Court.
With Pheu Thai now at the helm, a careful approach to constitutional redrafting is warranted, particularly given the formidable task of balancing legality and technical complexity. The Constitutional Court mandates referendums for major charter overhauls, prompting Pheu Thai to propose three referendums—each costing upwards of three billion baht—a move that irked the MFP.
The government plans to first query voters on whether they endorse the charter rewrite initiative. Should they agree, a second referendum will address potential amendments to Section 256 to facilitate a new draft. Finally, a third referendum will allow public consensus on adopting the new charter. Yet, a stalemate looms over the double-majority rule, which requires significant voter turnout and a winning threshold. This differs from the simpler requirements that were contested by PP.
The House of Representatives attempted to simplify the rule to a simple majority, only to meet Senate opposition. The heated debate heads to a joint House-Senate session, likely delaying any February referendum hope. Some senators argue for stringent thresholds given the national gravity of such decisions. Despite these hurdles, the timing of the provincial administrative elections in February sparks speculation about cost-effective parallel voting sessions.
Nikorn Chamnong, Secretary of the House Panel on the referendum bill, recently announced that a February referendum is improbable. With parliamentary recess delaying any joint session, timing remains an obstacle.
Meanwhile, another political drama unfolds: the quest for a new chairperson of the Bank of Thailand (BoT). Following two postponements of this decision, speculation mounts about the Finance Ministry’s possible alternative nominations. The delay in appointing a successor to Porametee Vimolsiri, whose term ended in September, is particularly telling.
The Finance Ministry’s candidate, Kittiratt Na-Ranong, has encountered substantial resistance, attributed to his ties with the ruling Pheu Thai Party. As a figure entangled in political strings, his potential appointment is contentious. Not just critics, but four former central bank governors, including MR Pridiyathorn Devakula, have voiced concerns over political figures influencing the central bank.
Although Kittiratt’s professional background qualifies him for the role, his political affiliations spark debates on neutrality. His history of pressuring the central bank to lower interest rates during Yingluck Shinawatra’s administration presents another layer of concern.
Despite this tension, Sirikanya Tansakun, a deputy leader of the opposition People’s Party, suggests that Kittiratt’s problematic history with the central bank fuels opposition. His past frustrations with interest rates were perceived as unwelcome political interference.
Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira downplayed the board chairman’s influence, stressing the authority rests with subcommittees. Nonetheless, rumors swirl of alternative candidates like Pongpanu Svetarundra, former tourism and sports secretary, potentially stepping up.
Dr. Thanaporn Sriyakul, from the Political and Public Policy Analysis Institute, speculates the Finance Ministry’s continued support for Kittiratt, who is seen as politically experienced and resilient to public scrutiny. The economy’s robustness to withstand political discord is a noted reassurance.
Even amidst Kittiratt’s controversial path, Thanaporn suggests that opposition still holds the power to keep finance ministers accountable via no-confidence motions, ensuring that fiscal paths align with national interests. Thus, the drama around the BoT appointment continues to unfold, promising more political intrigue in the weeks to come.
Why does Thailand even need these constitutional changes? The current system has been stable for years.
Stable doesn’t mean fair or democratic, Joe. Many people in Thailand feel their voices aren’t heard under the current system.
Exactly, Larry. Stability can sometimes just be maintaining an unjust status quo!
To add, the changes are necessary to prevent the abuses of power that have occurred. People want progress, not just stability.
But who decides what progress looks like? It could easily lead to more chaos.
This whole Bank of Thailand chair issue seems like an unnecessary scandal to me. Isn’t competence more important than past political affiliations?
Kittiratt’s competence isn’t the issue. It’s his history of political interference that’s worrying.
True, but can’t he have learned from his past mistakes? People can change.
Yeah but the central bank should be above politics. His past is worrying in terms of potential conflicts of interest.
Why should voters have to pay for three referendums? Sounds like a massive waste of money to me!
The costs are justified if these referendums lead to a more democratic system.
I’m just worried those billions could be spent on healthcare or education instead.
Why can’t politicians in Thailand just get their act together? The rest of Asia is moving forward while they bicker.
It always boils down to whatever benefits those in power. Constitutional changes should reflect public needs, not political maneuvering.
That’s politics everywhere, Maria. But yeah, more transparency would be nice.
Senate’s blocking of a single majority rule is just a way to keep things from changing.
Yes, and it’s another method of gatekeeping power among the elites.
Interested to see how Sirikanya Tansakun from PP will handle this Bank of Thailand thing. Could be a power move.
Or it could just end up being a lot of political theater with no real result, Didi.
I’m more concerned with if all these debates are just driving foreign investors away.
PP and Pheu Thai really have a huge task ahead of them. Balancing the desire for reform with political reality is no easy feat.
Isn’t the whole referendum just a political strategy to delay actual decisions?
Wasn’t there a simple solution in the past where decisions like these were just made without so much drama?