Referendum voters give an inch, the NLA takes a mile

The Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) is now tasked with amending the charter draft to reflect those new Senatorial powers. But that process is proving far from simple.

There have been attempts to “interpret” the additional question in a way that would allow senators to also nominate prime ministerial candidates, rather than merely voting on candidates put forward by the elected lower House. The intention behind those attempts remains unclear. It’s difficult to say whether the proponents have the public interest in mind, or benefits of their own narrow group.

The additional question was, in truth, rather long and confusing. It asked voters: “Do you agree that, for the benefit of continuous national reform under the national strategy, it should be stated in the draft constitution’s Transitory Clauses that during the first five years of the first Parliament under the new constitution, both Houses shall jointly consider whether to approve the person suitable to be appointed as prime minister?”

However, the gist was clear: Do you agree that senators should join MPs in voting to select the prime minister. That was the meaning generally understood by voters who cast ballots in the referendum.

Yet some members of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), which originally proposed the additional question, have insisted that the words “jointly consider whether to approve” also meant senators should be allowed to nominate prime ministerial candidates.

They claim the question can be interpreted two ways – in a narrow manner and a wider manner. Narrowly interpreted, the question refers only to allowing senators to vote, but a wider interpretation would also cover their power to nominate candidates.

Earlier this week, NLA president Pornpetch Wichitcholchai backed the so-called wider interpretation by saying selected senators should also be able to put forward their candidate. The referendum question had asked voters if they would allow senators to “take part” in the process of approving a new prime minister, which Pornpetch claimed included nominating candidates: “The process of approval is not limited to just voting to approve or not.” 

A former a Supreme Court judge, Pornpetch compared the process to a court trial where a judge hears witnesses and also delivers a verdict.

The question is whether the “wider interpretation” is merely a case of voters giving an inch and the powers-that-be taking a mile.

Jetn Sirathranont, an NLA representative who consulted on the matter with the constitution drafters, said the additional proposal was worded in the shortest way the assembly could manage. He added that more than one question would have been needed in order to cover all the aspects.

That remark effectively confirmed that the additional proposal covered only one aspect – whether to allow senators to vote in selecting a prime minister.

Exactly why one group is insisting 250 NCPO-selected senators be allowed to nominate a prime ministerial candidate remains unclear.  But the reason should be known before long.

[email protected]