Bangkok Constitutional Reform: Key Obstacles Block Progress
Bangkok—Thailand’s political landscape is bracing for a contentious debate over proposed constitutional amendments. Significant hurdles threaten to derail the process before it gains momentum. The core of the controversy lies in two bills: one from the ruling Pheu Thai Party and another from the opposition People’s Party. Both aim to amend Section 256 of the constitution, governing the establishment of a charter drafting assembly (CDA)—the body tasked with rewriting the constitution.
While various political factions desire constitutional reform, the path forward is fraught with legal and procedural complexities. Nikorn Chamnong, director of the Chartthaipattana Party (a member of the ruling coalition), expressed deep skepticism about the bills' prospects. He argued that initiating deliberations without a prior public referendum is problematic, potentially triggering a constitutional crisis.
This concern stems from a 2021 Constitutional Court ruling mandating referendums before and after any substantial constitutional rewrite. Mr. Chamnong, former secretary of a House committee examining referendum and amendment options, emphasized that bypassing the initial referendum could render any subsequent parliamentary vote unconstitutional. He warned of potential legal challenges and ethical investigations for parliamentarians supporting the bills without a prior referendum.
Further complicating matters is disagreement over the amendments' scope. The Chartthaipattana Party expressed reservations about provisions potentially altering the first two chapters of the 2017 constitution, which define Thailand’s fundamental political structure, including the monarchy. This clashes with the apparent goals of some amendment proponents.
The People’s Party’s proposal for a fully elected CDA also drew criticism. Mr. Chamnong believes this adds to the already delicate deliberation process. Even if the bills pass parliamentary scrutiny, he noted, the charter-rewriting process would be further delayed until a separate referendum bill (not expected until July) becomes law. This timeline highlights the protracted and uncertain nature of constitutional reform in Thailand.
Despite these challenges, Parliament President Wan Muhamad Noor Matha defended placing the bills on the parliamentary agenda without a prior referendum, asserting he had not violated any laws. People’s Party spokesperson Parit Wacharasindhu expressed confidence that the planned deliberation aligns with the existing constitution, arguing that initial approval doesn’t preclude a subsequent referendum.
Echoing Mr. Chamnong’s concerns, Democrat Party list-MP Jurin Laksanawisit expressed apprehension that proceeding without a referendum would appear unconstitutional. The Chartthaipattana Party, wary of the legal and political risks, intends to abstain from voting. Mr. Chamnong clarified that, as the bills were submitted by political parties, not the cabinet, the Chartthaipattana Party is not obligated to support them.
Clashing interpretations of constitutional requirements, coupled with diverging political agendas, foreshadow a turbulent political battle. The path to constitutional reform in Thailand appears long and winding, riddled with potential pitfalls and requiring delicate political maneuvering.
