Tense day for charter panel
Play
Yesterday saw a fiery debate in the House committee in charge of vetting the charter amendment bill, as coalition and opposition lawmakers tried to outwit one another on the framework for a new charter.
A deadlock ensued as both sides refused to yield, prompting an agreement to resume the debate at a later date.
After the day-long debate, the committee completed vetting two draft provisions, one of which concerned the bill’s name.
Panel chairman Samart Kaew-mechai kicked off the meeting by proposing that all parties ratify an agreement explicitly exclud-ing royal provisions from the charter amendments.
Samart’s proposal was meant to appease the Democrats, who have called for a formal ban on amending the royal provisions.
Pheu Thai MP Weng Tojirakarn voiced support for the proposal, saying it would help to dispel Democrats’ concerns about giving “a blank cheque” to charter writers.
Democrat MP Suthas Ngern-muen said if all parties agreed to leave the monarchy out, the draft bill should set a clear mandate on what the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) can and cannot do. He said the ratification proposal was unacceptable, since it would not be a binding document for the CDA.
As the opposing sides insisted on their respective stands, Samart put the debate on hold by informing members of the appointment of red-shirt chairwoman Thida Thawornseth as the committee’s adviser.
Then the debate resumed with the Democrats reiterating that any charter amendments should avoid touching on the monarchy, the judiciary or independent organisations. The Democrats included Wiratana Kalayasiri and Warong Dechgitvigrom.
Pheu Thai MPs, including Cholnan Srikaew and Sanguan Pongmanee, countered that the panel had no mandate to deviate from the government-sponsored bill, which does not bar the CDA from touching on those three institutions.
The meeting proceeded to vet the first and second draft provisions. The meeting adjourned after the Democrats and Pheu Thai MPs locked horns again. The opposing sides clashed on two issues – whether all CDA members should be elected, and whether to drop the people-sponsored bills on charter amendments and rely solely on the government-sponsored draft.
