Bangkok: Chusak Sirinil, deputy leader of the Pheu Thai Party and member of the committee considering the draft constitutional amendment, addressed the recent decision to abolish the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA).
According to Thai News Agency, Chusak expressed concerns about the implications of leaving only the Drafting Committee and questioned the origin of this decision, the level of public participation, and the confidence in preventing specification issues.
Chusak highlighted that the Bhumjaithai Party and the Prachachon Party likely agreed to shift to a committee format, with Bhumjaithai dropping its proposal for a CDA. In contrast, Pheu Thai insisted on maintaining the CDA, viewing it as a positive move that allows for preliminary screening before parliamentary consideration. He mentioned that the public is familiar with the CDA, and despite disagreements, a vote determined the preference for the CDA format, ultimately rejecting it.
Chusak raised concerns about the formation of the committee responsible for drafting the constitution, as no decision had been made. He pointed out that the People’s Party used a method involving applications and elections, but eliminating elections would contradict the Pheu Thai Party’s stance, which believes that elections are essential for compliance with the Constitutional Court’s ruling.
The question of whether elections will be held for the CDA remains unresolved. Chusak expressed interest in hearing the committee’s proposal on the Constitution Drafting Committee’s formation. He speculated that elections might ultimately be excluded, questioning the process that would follow.
Chusak responded to claims by Mr. Panusaya Wacharasindhu, a Prachachon Party MP, about the Pheu Thai Party’s proposal for a Constituent Assembly (CSA) being sourced from MPs and senators, which allegedly distanced it from the public. Chusak reiterated that the original draft by Pheu Thai was chosen by the people and that no final decision had been made on its form. He noted the committee’s indecision on the methodology and mentioned that the Constitution Drafting Advisory Council, which was elected, made a decision on the matter.
Chusak emphasized the need to consider the source of the drafting committee for the constitution and whether it would incorporate public input. He noted discussions about preventing specification locking, referencing Mr. Pris’s “20 pick 1” model and questioning its effectiveness.
Regarding the government’s readiness to hold a special session, Chusak mentioned that it might occur around December 8-10, before the parliamentary session opens, allowing the second reading to proceed.
Finally, on the topic of a no-confidence motion, Chusak stated that no decision had been made yet regarding its timing, emphasizing that it is a significant issue requiring careful consideration.