A joint sitting of MPs and senators to examine charter amendment bills aimed at establishing a Constitutional Drafting Assembly (CDA) collapsed on Friday for a second consecutive day for lack of a quorum.
Dozens of MPs and senators stayed away from the sitting, believing it could violate a Constitutional Court ruling that such talks should not take place until a public referendum has been held.
Pheu Thai Party heavyweights denied accusations that they attempted to play both sides after the meeting was adjourned for the second day in a row.
On Thursday, Pheu Thai MP Sutin Klungsang explained that the lead party in the coalition government feared its own bill could be rejected due to a potential conflict with the court ruling. As a result, the party opted to skip the meeting, contributing to the failure to reach a quorum.
Only 204 parliamentarians were present during a headcount on Thursday. A quorum requires at least half of the 500 MPs and 200 senators to be in attendance.
The meeting resumed on Friday with Parliament president Wan Muhamad Noor Matha opening the session by outlining the time allocated for debate and asking People’s Party MP Parit Wacharasindhu to present the motion.
However, Pheu Thai MP Cholnan Srikaew protested, saying there were not enough MPs and senators to proceed. This prompted Pakornwut Udompipatskul of the People’s Party to protest. A commotion ensued, with Mr Parit attempting to present the motion amid calls for a headcount.
Mr Wan decided to proceed with a headcount, but amid continued protests, he agreed to a 20-minute recess to allow whips from the government, opposition and Senate to discuss how to resolve the deadlock.
After the recess, the headcount was conducted, but only 175 members identified themselves as present, forcing Mr Wan to adjourn the session once again.
Deputy Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai on Friday dismissed accusations that Pheu Thai was playing both sides.
“Don’t overthink it. Just go with what’s in front of us,” he said.
He insisted the flap over amending the constitution would not affect government unity and it was a matter of parliament, not legislation sponsored by the cabinet.
Mr Phumtham was coy about the proposal that his party seek another ruling from the Constitutional Court to address concerns that the amendment process could breach the constitution.
The Constitutional Court ruled in 2021 that a public referendum is required before initiating the charter drafting process. Mr Sutin defended the party’s move, saying that forcing a lack of quorum is a means to keep the bills from being rejected, and the party would seek a court ruling.
Dr Cholnan said the party would submit a motion to Mr Wan asking parliament to seek the court’s guidance as soon as possible.
People’s Party leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut expressed disappointment and condemned the government for a lack of political will to amend the charter.
He said that forcing a lack of quorum reflected the fact that the coalition parties could not reach an agreement on the bills, and that legal concerns were being used to hide the real problem.
Bhumjaithai Party leader Anutin Charnvirakul reiterated his party’s stance, saying it would not take part in the amendment process out of concerns about legal issues.
Bhumjaithai is the second-largest party in the coalition, with 71 MPs. About 120 senators, who in theory are supposed to be non-partisan, are known to be linked to Bhumjaithai.
Political analysts have said that the drafters of the 2017 constitution, who were appointed by the coup-makers, deliberately made it very difficult to amend.
The two bills put forward, sponsored by the ruling Pheu Thai Party and the main opposition People's Party, seek wholesale charter changes that would have to be approved by a referendum.
Mr Wan defended putting them on the agenda, but said that if parliament voted in favour of further discussion, then he could pause the process and seek a referendum.
Bhumjaithai and others maintain that even talking in parliament about the issue before holding a referendum could land people in legal trouble.
Meanwhile, the Office of the Constitutional Court has released an infographic clarifying the court’s ruling on whether parliament has the authority to draft a new constitution.
It explains that while parliament has the power to draft a new constitution, it must first ask the people for approval through a referendum. If this gains approval, writing a new charter can proceed.
Once the draft of the new constitution is completed, it must be put to another referendum to ask the public if they approve the draft.
