Cabinet delays decision on plebiscite

The Cabinet yesterday postponed a decision on whether to hold a public referendum on constitutional amendment.
Instead, it set up a new working group to study and determine the process of holding a referendum, as well as the laws and regulations involved, in order to find a suitable method, according to some Cabinet members who participated in yesterday’s weekly Cabinet meeting.
The new panel consists of Justice Minister Pracha Promnok, Interior Minister Charupong Ruangsuwan, Education Minister Phongthep Thepkanjana, Prime Minister’s Office Minister Varathep Ratanakorn and Atchaporn Charuchinda, secretary-general of the Council of State, which is the government’s legal advisory agency.
Varathep told a press conference after the Cabinet meeting that the working group has the duty of suggesting to the Cabinet a suitable method for holding a plebiscite on charter change.
The justice minister said he expected the working group to spend two to three weeks completing its job. “There are some laws involved. Many issues are complex and delicate. We will need to go into the details,” he said.
At its meeting yesterday, the Cabinet acknowledged a previous working group’s initial findings on holding a public referendum, according to Varathep.
The panel included the PM’s Office minister, the interior minister, and representatives from the Justice Ministry and relevant state agencies.
Pracha told the press conference that his panel had heard viewpoints from coalition parties, the House speaker, the Senate speaker, and the Election Commission, and they agreed that a referendum should be held to ask the public whether to go ahead with constitutional amendment.
The government will not continue with its charter rewrite moves if less than half of the estimated 46 million eligible voters turn out to vote, according to Varathep. “If the turnout is more than 23 million, the government will go ahead,” he said. For the referendum to pass, half of the population of eligible voters must turn out, and a majority of that turnout must vote yes.
He said after the Cabinet meeting that the voters would be asked in the referendum whether a constitution drafting assembly should be formed to write an entirely new charter.
Charupong said yesterday that he was confident that more than half of the eligible voters would come out to vote in the plebiscite. “At general elections, there are often more than 50 per cent of eligible voters turning out,” he said.
At yesterday’s meeting, Charupong told the Cabinet that the government should try to tell the eligible voters that it was illegal not to turn out to vote, according to a source. “We have to spread the information that it’s people’s constitutional duty to exercise their voting right, or they will act against the law,” he was quoted as saying.
Opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday said that opponents of constitutional amendment should have the right to campaign against it. He earlier called for those people to “abort” charter change at the plebiscite.
Some figures in his Democrat Party called for eligible voters not to show up for the referendum.
A highly placed source at the Election Commission said yesterday that the Democrat politicians who called for eligible voters not to turn out should not be considered as violating the law, as no referendum law has been invoked or effective.
In a related development, Election Commission member Sodsri Satayathum said whether the effect of the referendum was binding depended on the objective of holding it: whether it was to achieve a resolution or merely to seek advice for the Cabinet. In the first case, the Cabinet would have to follow the referendum result – provided turnout is equivalent to half of the number of eligible voters, and the majority of the turnout votes yes.
On concerns that the current Constitution allows holding a national referendum only on issues relating to the government’s administration, Sodsri said the Constitution Court had ruled that before the charter could be amended, people should be asked if they agree with the idea. She said the government has the power to start the process of a national referendum, but the power to amend the Constitution belongs to the Parliament.
“If the government holds a referendum and the result shows [the people] disagree with charter amendment, it doesn’t mean that the Parliament must stop voting on the third reading of the [Article 291] charter amendment, because they are different agencies. On the other hand, if the referendum shows the people agree with charter amendment, the government can use the decision [as an incentive] to decide to carry on with a vote on the third reading,” she said.