Govt having second thoughts on charter referendum

The diffidence was apparent at the weekly Cabinet meeting on Tuesday. Initially, it was expected that the Cabinet would resolve to announce the referendum, but instead it decided to set up a new panel to work out how the plebiscite should be held and how public debates on the amendment should be set up. This move is seen as an effort to buy time. 

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung was very straightforward when he said: “In 2013, there will be 49 million eligible voters so the voter turnout must be at least 25 million to make the referendum valid. So, it will be difficult to clear this hurdle. We must analyse politics based on truth, not on daydreams.”

He added that the easiest thing for the government would be to only amend certain articles of the charter instead of rewriting the entire Constitution. In fact, he said, he had already prepared nine issues on which the charter should be amended. 

Though Chalerm did not attend the weekly Cabinet meeting on grounds that he was ill, many believe that he was expressing his dissatisfaction at the government’s plan to hold a public referendum. Obviously, his dissatisfaction has affected the government’s decision. 

Now all eyes are on what the government does in relation to the referendum. 

Of course, the most convenient thing would be to buy time. Earlier, the government said the plebiscite would be held in March or April so the bill can go through the final reading before the parliamentary session expires on April 21. However, the new working committee will be spending more than a month studying the issue, which is a clear indication that the government is not rushing to carry out the referendum as its stability might be affected. 

“If the amendment is rejected in the referendum, the government’s stability will be definitely affected. Some people will demand that the government take responsibility. Now, it is not an issue because the referendum has not yet happened. But when it is done, some might ask why Bt2 billion was wasted when the government knew that it would fail? The government would be forced to take responsibility,” Chalerm had warned earlier. 

Though the law does not require the government to take responsibility, it will need to step up because the referendum could harm the coalition politically. Senate Speaker Nikom Wairatpanich voiced concern on the same point, but said the government could “get” voters to cast their ballot because that was not prohibited. 

Another option for the government is to go for public consultation rather than a referendum. This way, the voter turnout will not matter, but the government may not go for this option because it would only be a waste of time and effort. 

The third option is for the government to rescind its plan to hold a referendum and forget about pushing the bill through the third reading in order to pave the way for setting up a constitution drafting assembly. Instead, the government could draft a new amendment bill to only change certain articles. In fact, several veteran politicians believe that this would be the best way to maintain the government’s stability. 

However, former PM Thaksin Shinawatra might disagree, because it will not give the government an excuse to erase Article 309. For Thaksin, Article 309 – which allows legal action to be taken against him – needs to be abolished in order to pave the way for reconciliation. 

Besides, several landmines seem to be waiting to explode on the path to a referendum. The biggest is the one that requires a “yes” from at least half of the eligible voters to validate the requirement. Some 15.7 million people voted for the Pheu Thai Party in the last election, and if supporters of other coalition partners are added to this number, the government might be able to garner 18 million voters. However, it will be almost impossible for it to solicit another 7 million votes, which would be required for the referendum to go through. 

Another issue waiting to explode is that the government will be required to provide information on the charter amendment for people to consider before voting on the referendum. If the government’s opponents believe that the information provided is biased, they can appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court to terminate the referendum.

Of course, the final decision on the referendum lies in the hands of that one person who is pulling the strings from behind the scenes, though hopefully he will make the safest choice – one that allows this government to stay in power as long as possible.