Govt’s charter amendment on the rocks

The ruling Pheu Thai Party’s U-turn on its charter amendment proposal concerning the ethical standards of political officeholders has raised questions over whether the government will pursue any amendments or even follow through on its commitment to draft a new charter.
Pheu Thai recently submitted a bill to parliament proposing to revise parts of the 2017 charter, including Section 160, which outlines the prerequisites for individuals wishing to become ministers.
It says that they must be evidently honest and not have committed any severe ethics violations.
However, the ruling party’s proposal met strong opposition from within the coalition bloc, particularly the Bhumjaithai and United Thai Nation (UTN) parties. Pheu Thai secretary-general Sorawong Thienthong suggested the party is considering removing the bill for further review.
The Bangkok Post talked to analysts and representatives from various parties, asking them to weigh in on whether section-by-section charter amendments can succeed and if the charter rewrite process can meet its tentative deadline.
Heeding public opinion
Pheu Thai list-MP Sutin Klungsang said revising the constitution must take into account public views, which is why the party decided to backtrack on the amendment.
He said the party does not consider the move to be embarrassing at all.
With the section-by-section amendments being shelved, he said the party is instead looking ahead to a more comprehensive rewrite that will address the ethical standards of political officeholders.
However, he said it is hard to predict how long that will take, especially when the proposal must be put up for multiple rounds of public referendum.
Mr Sutin said a new charter is unlikely to come into effect before the next general election and there is still a possibility that Pheu Thai will pursue amendments section-by-section in the future.
Mr Sutin said the party initially proposed section-by-section amendments to address urgent issues as a full rewrite could take several years.
When asked about criticism the move is self-serving, he said it is intended to protect political officeholders and ensure stability.
“Perhaps the coalition partners will see eye to eye with us in the future and discuss the issue to find common ground. If they view politicians as representing the people, they won’t see it as a being about personal gain,” he said.
No edits by section
With strong resistance from coalition partners, Pheu Thai is highly unlikely to pursue section-by-section amendments to avoid a rift within the bloc, said a source in the People’s Party (PP).
The PP’s proposed amendments are equally unlikely to be approved in parliament, but the party decided to proceed to raise awareness about flaws in the charter, said the source.
“We’re highlighting the issues because we see them as problematic. None of those 30 MPs facing ethical questions have endorsed the bill, as a gesture to show that we’re not doing it for ourselves.”
The source was referring to an investigation into ethical conduct of 44 politicians of the now-dissolved Move Forward Party (MFP) who supported a bill seeking to revise the lese majeste law. Several have been banned from politics as the MFP was dissolved by the court order.
According to the source, any charter rewrite is unlikely to be completed within three years, partly because senators believed to be controlled by a coalition party are unlikely to support it.
Last week, after Pheu Thai decided to reverse course, PP list-MP Parit Wacharasindhu said the party would hold off on amending the charter provisions regarding the ethical standards of political officeholders.
He said the party does not want the issue to be used as an excuse by the government coalition to withdraw support for other proposals pushed by the party.
However, the opposition party said it would push for six other changes to the constitution, including a bill to prevent a new military coup, a bill to reform the armed forces and another to prevent collusion between the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and the government.
Not in the public good
UTN deputy leader and list-MP Wittaya Kaewparadai said the Pheu Thai’s six-point proposal has nothing to do with the public interest and could potentially lead to a new round of conflict. He cited as an example the party’s earlier bid to pass a controversial blanket amnesty bill during the Yingluck Shinawatra administration, which sparked street protests and led to the 2014 coup.
The bill was regarded as an attempt to legally whitewash former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a move that served politicians’ interests rather than those of the electorate, he noted.
“These issues are likely to incite street protests, but the number of people taking to the streets may be smaller. But we shouldn’t underestimate them because the issue is divisive. Initially, we can expect petitions to be filed with various agencies,” he said.
Mr Wittaya said he disagrees with the proposed amendment and will clarify to his party how the revision is not in the country’s best interest.
The UTN deputy leader said he does not believe Pheu Thai will succeed with its bid to amend the charter unless it switches sides and joins the opposition People’s Party, which earlier submitted a similar bill. He insisted the government should honour its agreement to seek a charter rewrite, excepting Chapters 1& 2.
Referendum uncertain
Before the Pheu Thai’s U-turn, Nikorn Chamnong, secretary to the special House committee vetting the referendum bill, raised concerns the bid to revise the ethical standards for politicians could complicate a charter rewrite.
Speaking at a forum organised by the Election Commission on Sept 23, he said the proposed change might be included in the planned referendum and warned that such inclusion could influence voters’ decisions. He also expressed uncertainty about the Senate’s stance on the bill, which is up for scrutiny in the Upper House tomorrow.
The House amended Section 13 of the Referendum Act to abolish the “double majority” rule and replace it with a single majority, meaning that for a referendum to be adopted, it requires only more than half of the votes cast.
The amendment bill passed the House on Aug 21 with the overwhelming support of 409 votes and was sent to the Senate for review. The Senate then voted 179 to 5, with three abstentions, to pass it in its first reading despite some senators voicing opposition. However, the special Senate committee scrutinising the bill has proposed reinstating the “double majority” requirement, and senators are scheduled to deliberate on the issue tomorrow.
Mr Nikorn said that if the Senate votes to reintroduce the double majority rule, the bill will be suspended for six months before it can be referred back to the House. If the MPs then reaffirm their support, the law can be passed.
He noted that a six-month wait would delay the planned referendum in early February next year, opening the door for other charter amendment attempts that could intensify pressure.
“The fate of the charter rewrite process hinges on the planned referendum in early February [tentatively on Feb 2],” he said.
Yutthaporn Issarachai, a political science lecturer at Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, said it would be no surprise if the ruling party did not bring back the issue of ethical standards for politicians, especially as coalition partners disagree with it.
He said charter amendments require consensus from the House and the Senate and at least 20% of support from the opposition bloc. If a major coalition member such as Bhumjaithai does not back the move, it is the end of the road.
He said the government needs to negotiate to maintain unity, noting the compromise reached on the cannabis policy as an example of such negotiation to keep the coalition intact.
“If the Senate does not agree with the House on the referendum bill, it will push back the timeline for the charter rewrite,” Mr Yutthaporn said.