Explainer: Thailand’s charter change push faces rocky ride in Parliament

In the face of looming legal pitfalls, Thailand’s Parliament is debating two constitutional amendment bills that would pave the way for writing a new charter.

On February 13-14, government and opposition MPs, along with senators, are debating two separate drafts proposed by the ruling Pheu Thai Party and the opposition-leading People’s Party.

Meeting adjourned after walkout

However, the first day of debate on Thursday was cut short after just two and a half hours due to a walkout by a group of lawmakers. The debate was scheduled to resume at 9.30am on Friday (February 14).

The walkout came after Senator Premsak Piayura submitted a third motion, asking Parliament president Wan Muhamad Noor Matha to seek a Constitutional Court ruling on whether Parliament has the authority to amend the charter for a rewrite without a nationwide public referendum.

An attempt to get Premsak’s motion tabled for deliberation before the two amendment bills failed to get majority support from the joint meeting of the two Houses.

Many senators then left the chamber in protest, arguing that continuing with the meeting could violate a 2021 Constitutional Court ruling requiring a public referendum on any major charter change.

Premsak then asked the Parliament president to call a quorum count, at which point only 204 parliamentarians registered their attendance, falling short of the 350 required for a quorum.

Numerous senators and MPs who had remained in the chamber – including many from Pheu Thai – did not register their attendance.

Senior Pheu Thai MP Suthin Klungsang explained that the party agreed with Premsak’s motion, and wanted to avoid wasting its amendment bill.

Seeking a complete rewrite

Both drafts of the two largest political parties seek to amend Article 256 of the Constitution to ease restrictions and facilitate revision of the current charter.

The two bills would also add a new chapter to allow the drafting of an entirely new constitution, to be written by an appointed committee under an elected 200-member constitution drafting assembly (CDA).

The current Constitution, enacted in April 2017, appears designed to make it very difficult to amend, with any change requiring strong support from all sides in Parliament – the ruling coalition, opposition parties, and senators.

The latest amendment bid follows several failed attempts and faces opposition from many senators, who are against a charter rewrite.

They argue that amending individual “problematic” or “undemocratic” provisions would be sufficient to improve the current charter, which was drafted by a junta-appointed CDA following the 2014 military coup.

Opponents of a rewrite have threatened to petition the Constitutional Court for a ruling on whether Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution before gaining a public mandate via a referendum.

Legal question emerges

Some parliamentarians claim that proceeding with charter change to allow a full rewrite would risk breaching the Constitutional Court’s 2021 ruling.

On Wednesday, MPs from Bhumjaithai, the ruling coalition’s second largest partner, announced they would boycott this week’s parliamentary debate, citing this issue.

Bhumjaithai leader Anutin Charnvirakul said the party was convinced that the 2021 ruling required a national referendum to ask voters if they wanted a new constitution before Parliament could amend the current one for a full rewrite.

That stance was confirmed by the party’s secretary-general, Chaichanok Chidchob, in Parliament on Thursday, leading to the walkout.

In contrast, Pheu Thai and the People’s Party agreed before the session that a referendum should be conducted only after Parliament votes on the amendment bills.

This view was backed by the Parliament president, who said no laws had been violated by debating the amendment bills without first holding a referendum.

The Constitutional Court ruled in March 2021 that Parliament can arrange the drafting of a new constitution only after receiving approval through two national referendums – first to ask whether voters want a new constitution and then to ask if they accept the final draft.

The court said the national votes were required because the current charter was also approved by a public referendum.

Eradicating obstacles

The bills proposed by Pheu Thai and the People’s Party both seek to eradicate the requirement of support from at least one-third of the Senate in the first and third readings of any amendment motion.

Both bills require only a simple majority from both Houses for an amendment motion to pass. However, the People’s Party bill also requires that majority support must include votes from a minimum two-thirds of all MPs (334 out of 500).

Both bills rewrite the clause requiring referendums in various scenarios, including for charter amendment to pave the way for a rewrite.

Pheu Thai’s draft retains the requirement for three scenarios – any change to Chapter 1 on General Provisions, Chapter 2 on the Monarchy, and Chapter 15 on Amendment to the Constitution. The People's Party’s bill only leaves the requirement on Chapter 15 intact.

Under the current charter, an amendment bill requires a simple majority from both Houses combined (at least 351 votes from the 500 MPs and 200 senators) to pass its first reading, along with a “yes” vote from at least one-third of senators.

The same requirements apply in its third and final reading, when the bill also needs approval from at least 20% of opposition MPs.

Differences between rival bills

Despite sharing some similarities, the amendment bills proposed by Pheu Thai and the People’s Party contain many differences.

Among them are details involving the composition of the CDA and its constitution drafting committee (CDC), the qualifications of CDA members, the process of drafting a new constitution, and the timeframe for completing the task.

Pheu Thai’s bill mandates that all 200 CDA members are elected from constituencies, while the People’s Party draft requires that 100 each be elected from constituencies and a list system.

On the CDC’s composition, the People’s Party proposes at least 45 members, with two-thirds drawn from the CDA and the remainder filled by experts from relevant fields.

The Pheu Thai draft stipulates a 47-strong CDC, with 24 from the CDA, 12 appointed by political parties under a quota system based on their number of MPs, five nominated by the Senate, and six nominated by the Cabinet.

Pheu Thai’s bill would require the CDA to submit its charter draft to Parliament for approval within 30 days of completion. If there are any revisions, the draft must be returned to the CDA for further consideration on whether to amend it according to Parliament's suggestions or to confirm the original draft.

The final draft would then be put to a public referendum.

The People’s Party bill states that the CDA’s charter draft be presented to Parliament once it is finalised. Parliament is required to debate the draft within 30 days of receiving it, without a vote.

The final draft would then be submitted for referendum. The Pheu Thai bill gives the CDA 180 days to write a new charter, while the People’s Party draft sets a 360-day deadline.