Bangkok: Chusak Sirinil, a party-list MP for the Pheu Thai Party, expressed his disappointment following the elimination of the Pheu Thai Party’s draft constitution amendment. Despite his hopes that democratic principles would unite the people, Chusak attributed the rejection to political maneuvering. As a result, he voted in favor of the People’s Party’s draft and is preparing to continue advocating for reform in the joint committee.

According to Thai News Agency, Chusak announced that after voting on all three constitutional amendment drafts, Mr. Panusya Wacharasindhu’s draft was approved with over half the votes and one-third of the Senate. In contrast, the Pheu Thai Party’s draft received over half the votes, with 521 in total-461 from MPs and only 60 from the Senate-which did not meet the required one-third threshold. Consequently, two drafts passed, while the Pheu Thai Party’s proposal failed to satisfy Section 256 of the Constitution. Chusak expressed regret, stating that the party had made every effort to ensure their draft complied with the Constitutional Court’s ruling and Section 256, Chapter 15, of the Constitution.

Chusak compared the three amendments and asserted that the Pheu Thai Party’s draft was the most suitable for the current situation. He noted that the first draft faced criticism for its lack of relevance to the public, while another draft was seen as too closely tied to the people. The Pheu Thai Party’s draft aimed for a middle ground, allowing representatives from various organizations to participate in the 51-member Constituent Assembly. Chusak lamented the rejection of the Pheu Thai Party’s draft, attributing it to political motives rather than principles or reasoning.

The Pheu Thai Party’s failure to sign the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) distinguished it from other parties, allowing their drafts to pass. Chusak highlighted criticism of amendments to Sections 1 and 2, pointing out that the People’s Party’s draft did not prohibit changes to these sections as the Pheu Thai Party’s draft did. He concluded that political factors likely influenced the rejection and invited public critique.

Chusak also speculated that if the House had approved the Pheu Thai Party’s draft, the Bhumjaithai Party’s draft would have prevailed, negating the need for a second vote. Despite the setback, Chusak and his party members remain committed to participating in the joint committee to advocate for a new constitution. He emphasized the importance of connecting with the people to create a democratic constitution.

Chusak criticized the MOA process, calling it problematic, and urged the People’s Party to reconsider for the sake of drafting a new constitution. When questioned about voting concerns for readings 2 and 3, he explained that the Constituent Assembly’s structure depends on the draft type, with differing models from the Prachachon and Bhumjaithai Parties. He stressed the need for a solution, considering the urgency due to the limited time for organizing a referendum.

Concerns about potential amendments to Sections 1 and 2 of the Act were addressed by Chusak, who clarified that such amendments are not the committee’s responsibility, though a referendum would be required if necessary. He reassured that historical precedence showed amendments had not occurred in the past.

Chusak concluded by addressing potential constitutional questions regarding the People’s Party’s draft. He noted that any such query must follow parliamentary procedures under Section 210, requiring a parliamentary resolution to determine parliament’s authority and duties before approaching the court.