Bangkok: “Phradon” has called on the People’s Party to dismiss suspicions following concerns raised by “Phrits” about the Senate’s potential monopoly in selecting Constituent Assembly members. The apprehension is that such a monopoly could lead to misunderstandings and hinder progress. Phradon emphasized that disagreements over legislative proposals are a standard part of the process.
According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Paradorn Prisananantakul, a Member of Parliament for Ang Thong and Minister to the Prime Minister’s Office, provided an update on the constitutional amendment proposal. The Bhumjaithai Party has drafted an amendment to Section 256 of the constitution, which includes the addition of Section 15/1. Party members have been invited to endorse the draft, with signatures nearly finalized. At the Bhumjaithai Party meeting today, more signatures will be gathered. However, a one-fifth majority is mandated by the constitution, and the party currently holds 69 votes, which is insufficient for the amendment’s implementation. Consequently, support from MPs within coalition parties is required. Initial informal discussions have been held, and signature collection is underway. Each party is expected to convene meetings this afternoon to finalize the list. A meeting is scheduled for tomorrow to submit the draft constitutional amendment to the Speaker of the House of Representatives for agend
a inclusion.
Mr. Paradorn elaborated on the Bhumjaithai Party’s draft for the Constituent Assembly (CA), which seeks to amend the previous draft prepared before the Constitutional Court’s ruling. Initially, the CA was intended to be elected by the populace. However, post-ruling, the draft was revised. The updated CA will have two segments: the first comprising 77 members, one for each province, selected through provincial applications and subsequently chosen by the National Assembly. The second segment will involve academics from various fields, categorized into 7 jurists, 7 political scientists, and 8 other experts, making a total of 22 individuals, selected by Parliament. Combined, the Constituent Assembly will consist of 99 members.
Discussing the model for Constituent Assembly acquisition with the People’s Party, Mr. Paradorn indicated ongoing informal discussions with Mr. Chaichanok Chidchob, head of Bhumjaithai Party’s referendum study team, and other working group members. The dialogue also included Mr. Panus Wacharasindhu, a party-list MP for the People’s Party, and Mr. Pakornwut Udompipatsakul, the opposition chief whip. Discussions adhered to the Constitutional Court’s ruling to prevent further interpretations post-amendment submission. He mentioned that the current government and parliament have only four months, and any action breaching the court’s ruling could lead to interpretations that stall the amendment process. Hence, he stressed the importance of all parties deliberating on past Constitutional Court rulings.
In response to concerns about the Bhumjaithai Party’s CA selection model potentially leading to monopolization, Mr. Paradorn argued that Parliament, with his party’s 70 votes, could not monopolize the election. The Prachachon Party and the Pheu Thai Party each have over 140 votes, making monopolization implausible with 70 votes.
Mr. Paradorn urged, “Today, let’s not be overly paranoid. If we become overly paranoid, instead of moving forward, we’ll end up going backwards. Our ultimate goal is to move forward with constitutional amendment. If we remain paranoid, progress will be difficult, given the limited time of only four months. I believe everyone must sincerely cooperate, as we share the same goal: to complete the constitutional amendment under the MoA within this week.”
Addressing the possibility of using quota allocations based on proportional representation of MPs if parliamentary elections are not permitted, Mr. Paradorn stated that such allocations would equate to a monopoly. He clarified that quota allocations would result in significant vote shares, akin to committees where the party with the most votes receives the largest share, and the party with the fewest votes gets a smaller share.
When questioned about the challenges posed by the level of disagreement, Mr. Paradorn responded that there is still ample time. He explained, “It’s the same when any legislation is proposed. No one shares the same view. Each party may have different opinions, but ultimately, the goal is the same: moving forward with constitutional amendments. Therefore, when everyone shares the same goal, we must negotiate to find a path that allows all parties to move forward together, preventing any disruptions along the way.”