Academics split over hearings prior to vote on charter changes

Banjerd Singkaneti, dean of the National Institute Development Administration’s Faculty of Law, approved the move, saying the plan did not violate Article 165 of the Constitution, which stipulates that a public referendum can be held if the topic does not relate to the charter.
He believes the government can also ask the public if they want the entire Constitution to be amended.
However, he does not agree with the plan to have the ministries of Justice and Interior hold public hearings and a referendum, because the matters should be handled by the Election Commission, which he said has the duty to provide information about the topic a few months before a referendum is held.
“People must get useful information from the public from both supporters and opponents, so that they can make a sound judgement over what to do with the current Constitution. Since the government stands to benefit from the move, it should not be given roles to give information to the public,” he said.
Komsan Pokong, a law lecturer at Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University and a former charter writer, said the government’s plan to hold a referendum would be in violation of Article 165 because the law clearly stipulates that the subject of the referendum must only relate to an administrative matter that may have an adverse impact on the country or the public, and not to the government’s work.
The law also bans a public referendum that is in conflict with the Constitution, the state, individuals or groups, he said.
He also believes it is wrong to ask the public if they want to amend the whole charter in the referendum.
“The government can hold such a referendum only after it amends Article 291 of the Constitution and holds a referendum to ask the public if they accept the amended charter draft. The government’s plan is just a political ploy to use a public referendum to clash with the Constitution Court judges,” he added.
Chaiyan Chaiyaporn, lecturer at Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Political Sciences, approved the government’s plan to ask whether the public agreed to amend the entire charter, but he disapproved of holding public hearings since the procedures had no legal effect.
PM’s Office Minister Varathep Ratanakorn, who is responsible for holding a public referendum, said the government would reach a decision this week before submitting the referendum plan for Cabinet approval.
“The constitutional provisions in regard to a referendum do not include charter amendment as the topic for holding a referendum. So, we must look at other legal avenues to call a public referendum,” he said.
The government must be careful to abide by the law, otherwise government opponents would find ways to sabotage the move, he said.
“I personally believe a public referendum will ease political tension. The law stipulates that the result of a referendum depends on the majority, and not on more than half of total eligible voters,” he added.