Constitutional Amendment Effort Stalls in Thai Parliament

[webfact]

Picture courtesy: Thai PBS

 

Efforts to amend Thailand's Constitution faced a setback as a crucial joint sitting of the Senate and House collapsed due to a lack of quorum yesterday (Thursday).

 

The session, initiated by the ruling Pheu Thai and opposition People's parties, aimed to deliberate on two constitutional amendment draft bills. Scheduled to start at 9:30 AM, the meeting quickly revealed its limitations when only 204 MPs and senators were present—falling short of the necessary quorum.

 

President of Parliament, Wan Muhamad Noor Matha, had to adjourn the meeting after confirming the inadequate turnout. The adjournment was announced to resume the following day at 9:30 AM, yet uncertainty loomed over the possibility of continued proceedings.

 

Before the quorum was assessed, legislators from both houses engaged in a lively debate concerning an urgent motion. This motion, brought by Senator Premsak Piayura and supported by a coalition of around 40 MPs and senators, called for a Constitutional Court ruling on whether a referendum is required before enacting any charter amendments. The motion saw divisions within the assembly, with 275 legislators opposing it and 247 supporting further consideration.

 

Within the opposition People’s party, most MPs voted against the motion, aligning mostly with the Pheu Thai stance, barring 12 dissenting members. Notably, 20 United Thai Nation MPs sided with Pheu Thai MPs, while others chose to abstain. Support for the motion saw mixed reactions across various party lines, with notable numbers from the Democrats and Prachachart parties backing the Pheu Thai position.

Bhumjaithai MPs mostly vacated the parliament chamber, leaving Ekkarat Changlao as the lone supporter of the motion. Meanwhile, 136 senators opposed the motion led by Premsak, further indicating the fractured nature of the debate.

 

The actual debate on the proposed charter amendment bills had not even commenced before the adjournment. In a post-session statement, Pheu Thai party-list MP Sutin Klungsang expressed a strategic awareness of the slim odds that the amendments would pass if discussion had proceeded. The party has strategised to first seek a Constitutional Court ruling, endeavouring to keep the amendment effort viable.

 

The situation remains fluid, with uncertainty about whether parliamentary proceedings regarding this crucial constitutional amendment will resume as planned. The lack of quorum highlights the political complexity and varying positions within the Thai legislative landscape at this pivotal juncture, reported Thai PBS.

 

-- 2025-02-14

 

 

[JoePai]

What a pathetic bunch - any "normal" job they would be sacked 

[Emdog]

somehow I must have missed it, but I saw nothing at about what this amendment was supposed to amend. Would it be defamation if content of amendment was publicly known?

[Artisi]

1 hour ago, JoePai said:

What a pathetic bunch - any "normal" job they would be sacked 

Have you considered it might be a deliberate boycott of any change?

[ikke1959]

It isclear that the Thai government will not change any article of the constitution. The army, elite and the ones in charge will never accept the risk of losing power

[Tropicalevo]

2 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

It isclear that the Thai government will not change any article of the constitution. The army, elite and the ones in charge will never accept the risk of losing power

That statement is very sad and very true.

[connda]

What was the Constitutional amendments?  "Only those whose surnames begin with 'Shin-' can be Thailand's rulers," and "All 'Shin' get a Get Out Of Jail Free card?"
Asking for a friend.

[connda]

3 hours ago, Artisi said:

Have you considered it might be a deliberate boycott of any change?

Yep!

[connda]

5 hours ago, JoePai said:

What a pathetic bunch - any "normal" job they would be sacked 

Turn DOGE loose on them! 

[connda]

3 hours ago, Emdog said:

somehow I must have missed it, but I saw nothing at about what this amendment was supposed to amend. Would it be defamation if content of amendment was publicly known?

Per Grok:
"This week, the Thai Parliament is scheduled to debate two constitutional amendment bills. These bills aim to amend Section 256 of the Constitution to ease restrictions and pave the way for a new charter drafting process. Specifically, the amendments would introduce a new Chapter 15/1, which would establish a Constitution Drafting Assembly to write a new constitution. However, there are concerns about the passage of these bills, with indications from recent parliamentary sessions suggesting possible obstacles, including issues with quorum and opposition from certain parties like the Bhumjaithai Party."

Note to wannabe journalists: It's generally a good idea to clue the reading public in on the topics of Constitutional amendments if you're going to report on them.  That's kinda the point of journalism.  Yeah?