Thailand’s road to a new constitution just got longer; the House of Representatives and the Senate could not agree on whether to require a double majority when conducting referendums, further delaying passage of the Referendum Act. Meanwhile, both the Pheu Thai and People’s Parties have put their plans to amend sections in the Constitution concerning politicians’ ethics on hold.

Referendum Act amendment delayed

The Senate voted on 30 September to amend a Referendum bill previously approved by the House of Representatives to require a double majority when conducting referendums.  In spite of a push by Bhumjaithai MPs to win support of the measure, the House responded on 9 October by voting 345 to 0, with 65 abstentions, to reject Senate changes.

It may now take up to 8 months to amend the Referendum Act. A joint Senate-House committee must first be formed to find a solution and propose a new version of the bill within 60 days. If their second draft does not receive parliamentary approval, the measure cannot be proposed again for 180 days. Once this period has elapsed, however, the House is free to vote again on the original draft.

The formation of a joint committee may be delayed.  Senate President Mongkol Surasajja cancelled this week’s Senate meetings, which were scheduled for Monday and Tuesday (14 – 15 October), as Monday was a public holiday and the agenda had no other matters.  This leaves the Senate with only two more sessions, on 22 and 23 October, to discuss forming a joint committee before its term ends on 30 October.

According to Chart Thai Pattana MP Nikorn Jamnong, the House already named its 14 committee members and sent a list to the Senate on 10 October. Speaking as a member of the committee, he said that it would be very difficult to hold a first constitutional amendment referendum early next year during local government elections unless the Senate names its half of the committee by 21 October and the committee can put forward a resolution by 24 October for the two houses to vote on before the end of the session.

Parties delay proposing amendments to sections on ethics

The Pheu Thai Party previously said that it would propose amendments to sections in the Constitution concerning ethical regulations. Now, however, MP Adisorn Piengkes says that the party will delay such proposals out of concern that it might lead to criticisms that the party was changing things for its own benefit.

He added that the party agrees with other coalition parties and members of the public that constitutional amendments are not as urgent as addressing flood damage in parts of the country and other quality of life issues. He also stressed that the government could continue doing its job without amending the Constitution, and argued that holding a referendum on amendments to these sections would be a waste of national budget which could be used amending the entire Constitution after a Constituent Assembly has been formed.

The People’s Party, which was formed after the dissolution of the Move Forward party, also said that it will delay its proposal to amend sections in the Constitution governing politicians’ ethics. MP and party spokesperson Parit Wacharasindhu said that the party is not proposing these amendments as a reaction to certain events or for its own benefit, adding that it is willing to follow other parties and put its proposal on hold. He also said that the party does not want its bill to be used as an excuse by other parties reject constitutional amendments.

According to Parit, certain sections of the constitution must eventually be amended to stop the Constitutional Court and other independent bodies from using “ethical standards” investigations as a weapon again political rivals, a move which he contends is disrupting the country’s political stability, governmental legitimacy, and economic development.

The People’s Party also plans to push forward with other constitutional amendment bills, including one which proposes the repeal of Article 279 in the Constitution, which made all announcements and orders of the NCPO and its Head lawful, and another which proposes to add articles to the Constitution protecting people’s rights and freedoms by requiring state officials to refuse orders made by superiors planning to stage coups.