Govt’s Charter Amendment Facing Challenges

The ruling Pheu Thai Party’s recent reversal on its charter amendment proposal pertaining to the ethical standards of political officeholders has sparked widespread discussion about the government’s commitment to pursuing any amendments and drafting a new charter.

Pheu Thai has put forth a bill in parliament aimed at revising sections of the 2017 charter, including Section 160, which details the qualifications required for individuals aspiring to become ministers, emphasizing the need for transparency and integrity without any significant ethical breaches.

Despite this proposal, there has been strong pushback from coalition partners, especially the Bhumjaithai and United Thai Nation (UTN) parties. Pheu Thai secretary-general Sorawong Thienthong indicated that the party is contemplating withdrawing the bill for further examination.

In an effort to gauge opinions, Pheu Thai representatives consulted analysts and various political parties regarding the feasibility of section-by-section amendments and whether the charter rewrite could meet its projected timeline.

Considering Public Opinion

Pheu Thai list-MP Sutin Klungsang emphasized that any constitutional amendments must reflect public sentiment, explaining the party’s decision to retract the amendment proposal as a response to community feedback.

He assured that the party views this decision as a strategic step rather than a setback.

With the section-by-section amendments sidelined, the focus now shifts towards a comprehensive charter rewrite aimed at addressing ethical standards for political officeholders, although he cautioned that the timeline for this endeavor remains uncertain, particularly given the need for multiple rounds of public referenda.

Mr. Sutin projected that a new charter is unlikely to be implemented before the next general elections, though he acknowledged there is potential for Pheu Thai to revisit section-by-section amendments in the future.

He mentioned that the initial push for these amendments was to tackle urgent issues, as a complete rewrite could span several years.

In response to accusations of self-serving motives, he asserted that the intention is to safeguard political officeholders and bolster stability.

“Hopefully, our coalition partners will align with us down the line and engage in discussions to find common ground. If they view politicians as representatives of the public, they will understand this isn’t merely about personal gain,” he stated.

Avoiding Section Edits

Given the strong opposition from coalition members, Pheu Thai is unlikely to advance with section-by-section amendments to maintain harmony within the coalition, according to sources within the People’s Party (PP).

While the PP’s proposed amendments face challenges in parliament, the party pursued this route to highlight the charter’s shortcomings, as stated by sources.

“We are bringing attention to these issues because we believe they are problematic. None of the 30 MPs embroiled in ethical concerns have endorsed the bill, demonstrating that this is not a self-serving initiative,” the source elaborated, referencing the ethical inquiries surrounding former politicians of the now-dissolved Move Forward Party (MFP).

The source indicated that any charter rewrite is unlikely to be finalized within three years, largely due to anticipated resistance from senators affiliated with coalition parties.

Following Pheu Thai’s change of direction, PP list-MP Parit Wacharasindhu noted that the party will postpone amending provisions concerning the ethical standards of political officeholders.

He expressed concerns that this issue might be leveraged by the government coalition to withdraw support from other party initiatives.

However, the opposition party remains steadfast in advocating for six additional constitutional changes, including measures to avert military coups, reform the armed forces, and prevent potential collusion between the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the government.

Questioning Public Interest

Deputy leader and UTN list-MP Wittaya Kaewparadai criticized Pheu Thai’s six-point proposal, arguing it lacks alignment with public interests and could provoke further discord. He alluded to the party’s previous controversial attempts, such as the blanket amnesty bill during the Yingluck Shinawatra administration, which led to widespread protests and a coup.

“These issues are likely to incite public unrest, though it might not be on a large scale. Nevertheless, we should remain vigilant as these matters are divisive. Petitions can be anticipated to emerge,” he cautioned.

Mr. Wittaya emphasized his disagreement with the proposed amendments, intending to communicate to his party why this revision does not align with the nation’s welfare.

The UTN deputy leader expressed skepticism regarding Pheu Thai’s chances of amending the charter unless it collaborates with the opposition People’s Party, who previously introduced similar proposals. He urged the government to stand by its commitment to pursue a charter rewrite, excluding Chapters 1 and 2.

Referendum’s Fate Uncertain

Prior to Pheu Thai’s reversal, Nikorn Chamnong, secretary to the special House committee overseeing the referendum bill, expressed apprehension that revising ethical standards for politicians could complicate the charter rewrite process.

At a recent forum organized by the Election Commission, he cautioned that including this change in the referendum might affect voter behavior. He also raised concerns regarding the Senate’s stance on the bill, set for review in the Upper House.

The House revamped Section 13 of the Referendum Act, replacing the “double majority” requirement with a single majority, meaning a referendum only necessitates more than half of the votes cast to be adopted.

This amendment received overwhelming support, passing with 409 votes in favor and subsequently moving to the Senate, where it initially passed its first reading despite some objections. However, the special Senate committee reviewing the bill has suggested reinstating the “double majority” rule, with upcoming deliberations scheduled.

Mr. Nikorn warned that should the Senate opt to reintroduce the double majority rule, the bill would face a six-month delay before returning to the House, where it would require reaffirmation for passage.

This potential postponement could impact the planned referendum, currently aimed for early February next year, and may facilitate the emergence of competing charter amendment proposals.

“The future of the charter rewrite hinges on the anticipated referendum in early February,” he stated.

Yutthaporn Issarachai, a political science lecturer, underscored that it would not be surprising if the ruling party refrains from revisiting the issue of political ethical standards, especially given the discord among coalition partners.

He noted that charter amendments necessitate consensus from both the House and Senate, alongside at least 20% support from the opposition. Without backing from major coalition allies like Bhumjaithai, any proposed changes would likely falter.

“The government must engage in negotiations to maintain unity, as evidenced by the compromise on cannabis policy,” Mr. Yutthaporn added.

“If the Senate disagrees with the House on the referendum bill, the timeline for the charter rewrite will be adversely affected,” he concluded.