‘Chusak’ asks the government whip to coordinate with the leaders of both government and opposition political parties to discuss the amendment of the constitution and the amnesty law to move in the same direction. He insists on looking at the positive side that the same government will not block each other, just different legal opinions.
Mr. Chusak Sirinil, Minister attached to the Prime Minister’s Office, mentioned the study report of the Amnesty Act Committee that from his experience with the constitution, the successful draft law is a matter for the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate to agree on what it should be like because some political parties have proposed a draft law requesting amnesty for political cases, while some have said that it will also grant amnesty for political cases and cases related to Section 112. Currently, all draft laws are still pending in the House, including the study guideline report. Therefore, he personally thinks that the best solution at this time is to
discuss all matters with the leaders of political parties in the House, both the government and the opposition, to see what these parties ultimately think about this matter and whether they are ready to propose a draft law.
‘Some proposed a bill to amnesty political cases, some added cases related to Section 112 of the Criminal Code. If the people are included, political cases will cover the people’s cases. Currently, all related bills are pending in the parliament along with the results of the committee’s study. In order to make it as good as possible and gentle, after considering it, there is a fair direction in terms of considering the law. Therefore, I think I will take all the matters to discuss with the leaders of the related political parties who have seats in the parliament to discuss and crystallize what the opinions of these parties will be in the end. Will they agree or disagree on any issues? Are they ready to propose a bill? Because political parties are the main elements in the parliament. If w
e do not listen to each other first, in the end, once it is proposed and considered, it will become like the proposal to amend the constitution, which had different opinions and was not successful,’ said Mr. Chusak.
Mr. Chusak said that he had consulted with Mr. Wisut Chainarun, the government whip, to postpone the agenda of the report on the amnesty bill to wait for the opinions of the party leaders to be complete first. Go back and think carefully, which should not be too late. We must talk to all political parties, both the opposition and the government, to see the direction, such as the direction of the government, the opposition, and the public sector, so that the consideration of the draft law can be understood. The government whip believed that this approach should be correct, so the agenda was postponed. The government whip will work with the party leaders to reach a conclusion.
Regarding the feedback from many parties that they will not include Section 112 in the Amnesty Act, Mr. Chusak said that t
hey need to crystallize it so that when it is considered, we will see the picture and make the right decision. Right now, we know that some political parties want it, while some do not. It is just that in the past, we have acted as a committee member and have not invited the party leaders to discuss it officially. Therefore, we think that talking to the party leaders is the best. We would like the government whip to coordinate with the deputy prime ministers and leaders of other parties to talk, which may include amending the constitution because it is a necessary matter that needs to be discussed as a solution. If the Senate follows suit, in the end, the referendum law will be delayed and may not be in time for the timeline. Therefore, we use the same solution to have the party leaders come to talk, which is a similar matter.
For the consideration of the draft bill on referendum by the Senate today, which will return to using the Double majority or the criteria for holding a 2-tier referendum as before, Mr.
Chusak immediately replied that that’s it. If it’s like this, in the end, how will we proceed? Because the government announced its policy that it will create a people’s constitution. Making a new constitution is the government’s policy. If the situation turns out like this, it will be against the timeline that we previously talked about. Because originally we wanted to hold a referendum at the same time as the election of the provincial administrative organization president. But if it’s like this, it won’t be in time. If it’s not in time, what should we do? What are the ways to pass the new constitution according to the government’s policy?
As for whether it can be seen as a game that can block the government from moving forward with its policies, Mr. Chusak said that he did not see it that way, but rather as a difference of legal opinion. There would be no government blocking its own government, which he saw in a positive light. However, sometimes legal opinions can differ. Sometimes this person sees this
and that person sees that, which is too often. He gave an example that he and Mr. Wisut often disagreed.
Source: Thai News Agency