Bangkok: Senator Pisit Apiwatnapong has firmly stated that the ongoing political maneuvering, which could result in the dissolution of parliament, is not connected to the Senate’s position on Article 256/28. He expressed concerns that this article might diminish the Senate’s authority to oversee legislation. Pisit argued that if a political party secures more than 350 seats, it could lead to what he described as a parliamentary dictatorship, enabling the government to pass legislation at its discretion.
According to Thai News Agency, Senator Pisit addressed the parliament’s acceptance of the minority’s decision not to revoke the Senate’s power in constitutional matters, a move that could eventually dissolve the parliament. He contended that the Senate has little ground for defense, noting that their argument was based on the 2017 Constitution. He questioned why the existing framework, requiring a one-third Senate majority as envisioned by the constitution’s drafters and supported by 16 million voters in the referendum, was disregarded. Pisit highlighted that those questioning the process should also respect the minority’s decision, which aligns with the 2017 Constitution. He clarified that he did not aim to block or delay the constitutional amendment process, but that the majority of senators sought to preserve the Senate’s role, especially the significant one-third majority vote.
Pisit revealed that he had already withdrawn three opinions related to Article 256/26 that could favor senators, including eliminating political hiatus, imposing a five-year term limit, and requesting independent organizations to treat these as withdrawals of potential conflicts of interest, affecting senators as well. However, he noted that one-third of the senators disagreed with the committee’s majority opinion on voting rights.
He reiterated the necessity for the Senate to fulfill its legislative scrutinizing role, as there is no certainty of legislation’s efficacy. Pisit recalled instances where a single political party held a majority of over 350 seats, equating to a parliamentary dictatorship. He pointed out that with 350 seats, half of the 700, a party could legislate freely. He argued that if a single or combined political entity achieves more than 350 seats, they could enact laws as desired. Therefore, he questioned the significance of the Senate’s one-third vote, suggesting it should not be seen as a barrier.