Vetting of charter amendment bill inconclusive

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2012
Vetting of charter amendment bill inconclusive

The House committee in charge of vetting the charter amendment bill on Thursday convened a meeting but failed to make headway despite the looming deadline to complete its work by next week.

 

Committee chair Samart Kaewmechai adjourned the meeting following a fiery but inconclusive debate. He also decided to schedule an extra session next Thursday’s afternoon on top of the morning’s meeting in a bid to meet the March 25 deadline.
After the last session saw the vetting of two draft provisions, Pheu Thai and Democrat MPs picked up by debating the next two provisions.
The opposing sides could not form a conclusion on the draft provision three related to the referendum vote for the new charter, prompting Samart to suspend the debate until a later date.
The meeting then turned to draft provision four related to the composition of the Constitution Drafting Assembly.
The Democrats, including Sutasn Ngernmuen and Thepthai Senpong, called for the elections of all CDA members while the ruling party insisted on the government-sponsored draft prescribing for a mix system of direct vote for CDA members and parliamentary vote for charter writers based on a pool of academics.
As the deadlock ensued and Samart ended the meeting without calling for a vote.
Speaking before the meeting, coalition chief whip Udomdej Rattanasatien voiced optimism that the vetting of nine-provision bill could complete within the deadline.
PM’s Office Woravat Uapinyakul said, however, that the passage of the bill might not be possible within the current House session which will end on April 18.
Waravat pinned the blame on the Democrats for raising “frivolous arguments” in a delay tactics.
He said he was uncertain whether the government would seek an extraordinary House session for the final two readings of the bill or await the next session.
Should the extraordinary session be convened, the opposition Democrats are entitled to file for a censure debate focusing on the government’s code of ethics.