On April 24, 2024 Progress Party Post a message via Facebook about the case of makingnew constitution stated that the Progressive Party has always insisted that we support the preparation of a new constitution that has legal legitimacy.democracyMake it happen as soon as possible.
After yesterday’s Cabinet meeting (April 23), the government announced its approval in principle to start moving forward towards drafting a new constitution along the path “referendum 3 times” (according to the proposal of the Education Committee Set up by the government and led by Phumtham Wechayachai) by holding a first referendum during the months of July-August with the question: “Do you approve or not? that a new constitution will be prepared Without amending Section 1 (General Provisions) and Section 2 (The King)?”
While we wait for the Cabinet resolution to be published to the public and wait for the announcement to be published in the official Royal Gazette. The Progressive Party would like to reiterate that the government should reconsider the issue. Such a “referendum question”, which we view as a problematic referendum question, increases the risk that the preparation of the new constitution will be derailed and unsuccessful.
1. Government referendum questions This increases the risk that the first referendum will not be approved by the people. This is because it is a question that has “stuffed” conditions or minor details into the question.
Including conditions or details about Sections 1-2 in the question will cause some people to agree with some parts of the question. but disagree with some other parts of the question (for example, agree with the preparation of a new constitution but do not agree with the locking of categories 1-2) may not be sure how to vote
If people with these positions decide to vote differently (e.g. some people vote “in favor” / some people vote “disapproval” / some people “abstain”), then it means that among people who want to see a new constitution Not everyone will vote “in favor” in unity. This increases the risk that the referendum will not pass. (Especially if the amendment to the Referendum Act regarding the criteria for “votes exceeding one-half at two levels cannot be implemented in time for the first referendum)
If the referendum does not pass for the aforementioned reasons Not only will it cause the process of drafting a new constitution to falter. But it will also cause problems in interpretation in the future. What was the reason the referendum did not pass? (For example, because the people did not want to see a new constitution or because the people did not agree with the conditions regarding locking sections 1-2)
2. Government referendum questions This increases the risk that the drafting of the new constitution will encounter legal problems.
The content of each section of the Constitution is naturally interrelated. Therefore, when drafting a new constitution (from Chapter 3 onwards), any amendment to the text or content in Chapter 3 onwards may lead to the legal need to Edit some messages or content in categories 1-2 to be consistent with other categories.
Example: If the new constitution abolishes the Senate and uses a unicameral system. The word “Senate” or “Senator” that appears in Sections 1-2 should be eliminated (for example, in Section 12 which stipulates that a Privy Councilor must not be a Senator) because there is no such thing as a Senate.
But if Sections 1-2 are locked, editing such text is not possible and may lead to legal problems.
3. Government referendum questions increasing the risk that the new constitution It cannot solve the problem of different opinions and does not truly reflect the new consensus of all people in society. One of the important goals of the Constitution It is the design of political rules that are acceptable to all parties in the midst of differing opinions.
In the past, editing content in Categories 1-2 was a normal occurrence. Every time a new constitution is prepared (Including when the 1997 / 2007 / 2017 Constitution was created) Moreover, Section 255 of the Constitution already clearly prohibits it. Do not allow amendments to the contents of the Constitution. (no matter what category) that will lead to a change in the regime or state form
Therefore, if some groups of people want to improve some of the content in Sections 1-2 without such amendments affecting the form of government or the form of the state, Locking him down from being able to express his opinions with reason and maturity in an area that should be safe like the S.R.O. (even though most of the S.R.S. may ultimately not agree with his proposal. ) may make resolving political differences of opinion in the current context more challenging. and increases the risk that the new constitution will not be seen as truly reflecting the new consensus of all citizens.
All concerns that the Progressive Party has regarding this referendum question It is a concern that we have continually tried to echo to the government and to the public.
Since each referendum is expected to cost more than 3,000 million baht and will take at least 3-4 months, we sincerely hope that the government will design a referendum question that does not increase the risk of disrupting the constitution-making process. The new edition stumbles unnecessarily.
To prevent such risks The Forward Party would like to propose one more time before it is too late. Let the government reconsider and turn to the main questions of the first open referendum (such as “Do you approve or not? That there will be a new constitution?”) which was one of the options for the referendum question that the government’s own sub-committee (led by Nikorn Chamnong) had previously proposed to the study committee. of the government to consider To increase the chances that a new constitution with democratic legitimacy will be successful.
