FRIDAY, March 29, 2024
nationthailand

Annulment of part of new law ‘wouldn’t delay referendum’

Annulment of part of new law ‘wouldn’t delay referendum’

Law should be safe if part of article 61 is ruled invalid: experts

THE authorities and related parties yesterday concurred that the potential annulment of a controversial clause in the referendum law would not result in a referendum on the constitution draft being postponed.
They agreed that the removal of the second clause of Article 61, which prohibits the dissemination of false, violent, or vulgar messages that could incite unrest, would not invalidate the entire law.
The development came after junta chief, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, had said the referendum could be postponed if necessary.
His remark was in response to the Ombudsmen’s petition to the Constitutional Court seeking a ruling on whether the clause contravened the 2014 interim charter’s protection of people’s rights and freedom.
The chief of the Constitution Drafting Commission, Meechai Ruchupan, said yesterday the issue was not critical.
He re-emphasised PM Prayut’s statement that the referendum would be put off only if necessary.
Asked whether a delay would shake the government’s security, Meechai replied that he did not think so. He said there would be no postponement based on a personal demand from the powers that be.
He added that the annulment of the second clause of Article 61 would not delay the referendum. “It could be postponed only if there is a nuclear attack or a world war, I guess,” the CDC chief said, in apparent jest.
However, Meechai expressed concern that an annulment could open the way for the distortion of the charter, thus affecting the CDC’s information dissemination of the charter content.
Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam agreed that an annulment would not have a great impact on the referendum and the law regulating it.
“If the [Constitutional Court] rules that it [the clause] really violates the charter, then we remove the three problematic words: aggressive, harsh, and rude,” he said. “It will not affect the rest of the referendum bill.”
However, Wissanu agreed that the potential for the charter draft to be distorted as a result would be an issue, adding those distorting the charter could have various intentions and manipulative approaches. The deputy PM did not say what measures would be used against them.
Seree Suwanpanont, chairman of the political reform panel under the National Reform Steering Assembly, concurred that the referendum bill would not be invalidated by a single clause in Article 61.
“The petition was only against the second clause of Article 61 … The referendum could still go on,” he said.
He added that the National Legislative Assembly could adjust the clause to make it clearer, if the government insisted on wanting to contain any act deemed seditious during the run-up to the referendum. 
He suggested that the government and the NLA propose an amended version of the bill by immediately removing the controversial clause so that the Constitutional Court would not have to rule on the matter.
The Internet Law Reform Dialogue, or iLaw, the organisation which lodged the petition against Article 61 with the Ombudsman’s Office, issued a statement on its website in which it said the nullification of the clause would not affect the referendum or other clauses in the bill. If the referendum were to be postponed, it would be the result of a decision made by the powers that be, iLaw said.
It reasoned similarly that any verdicts given by the Constitutional Court would only affect the problematic clause. The rest of the referendum bill would still be in effect and the planned referendum on August 7 would not be affected, it said.
“iLaw would like to stress that if the referendum is delayed, it wouldn’t be the result of the verdict of the Constitutional Court against the second clause of the Article 61 of the law. But it would rather be the arbitrary decision of the powers that be,” the statement read. 
“However, if the Constitutional Court rules that the petitioned clause is against the constitution, it will help make the referendum law not become a tool to limit rights and the freedom of expression of the people.”
Prayut said last night on his TV show, “Returning Happiness to the People in the Country”, that he had discussed the issue with his Deputy PM, Wissanu, who confirmed that an annulment of the clause would not stop the referendum.
 
RELATED
nationthailand