No change, no charter

The referendum is, without a doubt, intertwined with the fate of the constitutional amendment.
However, as the days wear on, it is becoming increasingly clear that support for a charter rewrite is falling by the wayside.
This is a far cry from the early days when most political parties paraded constitutional amendment as part of their election pledges during last year’s campaign rally.
Most vocal about amending the constitution was the People’s Party (PP), formerly the Move Forward Party (MFP), which sought to bring about sweeping changes to the charter in an effort to challenge the status quo.
In the previous election, the MFP wanted to prove that the sky is the limit when it comes to pushing the envelope, with the party listing out campaign pledges which included the abolition of independent agencies — such as the Constitutional Court — which it held responsible for the dissolution of its predecessor, the Future Forward Party, over a loan from the party’s leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.
The party also wanted unrestricted access to rewriting the entire constitution.
However, the MFP wanted to touch the pillars of the charter, namely chapters 1 and 2 of the 2017 constitution. Chapter 1 contains sections that define Thailand as a single, indivisible kingdom with a democratic regime and establish the King as the head of state. Chapter 2, meanwhile, outlines royal prerogatives.
The 2017 charter was promulgated by the National Council for Peace and Order, which installed Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha as premier in the wake of the May 22, 2014 coup, which toppled the Pheu Thai-led administration.
Naturally, Pheu Thai was on board, as it views the constitution as a remnant of the dictatorship.
Conservative parties and those sympathetic to the NCPO were inclined to support the amendment push as long as the issues slated for the rewrite were not controversial.
A political source said the appetite for a charter rewrite among many parties, except PP, has waned since the Srettha Thavisin government came to power, despite MFP maintaining it would not take a step back over lese majeste law amendment, which it had insisted was non-negotiable.
However, the charter amendment push could not simply be brushed aside since it is a campaign promise both the PP and Pheu Thai have pledged to ardently pursue. The pledge has been declared before parliament, so the government has the obligation to fulfil it.
MFP paid the price when the Constitutional Court found it guilty of undermining the constitutional monarchy through its lese majeste law amendment campaign, an act punishable by party dissolution.
Watching from the sidelines, Pheu Thai, as the ruling party, knows well to tread carefully with charter redraft.
The charter amendment is unarguably a complex affair both in terms of substance and technicality.
The Constitutional Court has determined that for major areas of the charter to be reworked, referendums were in order. Pheu Thai, jittery it might overstep the legal limit, proposed holding three referendums — each costing at least three billion baht to organise — much to the chagrin of the MFP.
The first will ask voters whether they agree with the push to write a new charter. If the majority agrees, the second referendum will ask if Section 256 should be amended to allow for the drafting of a new charter.
Once a new charter is produced, the government will hold a third referendum, asking voters to decide whether it should be adopted.
A stalemate emerged when the details of the referendum process were laid out on the table. The crux of the matter had to do with the double-majority rule, which most political parties, particularly Pheu Thai and PP, want to do away with.
They argued the double-majority requirement — which requires that for a referendum result to be valid, at least half of eligible voters must cast their votes, and a winning vote must be supported by at least half of the voter turnout — will be too difficult to meet.
However, critics noted that the same rules applied when the NCPO tried to pass the current constitution in 2017.
The PP has spoken out about the potential danger posed by the double-majority requirement, warning that if a political group wants to derail a referendum in the future, all it has to do is encourage enough voters not to turn up at polling stations.
Not long after, the double-majority requirement was changed to a simple majority rule by the House of Representatives in the bill to amend the referendum law, which was then rejected by the Senate in favour of the original requirement.
Now, the differences must be hashed out in a joint House-Senate sitting, a time-consuming step which dashes any hope of holding a referendum by February next year as many politicians had hoped.
Several senators insisted referendums are meant to decide issues of national significance, so the threshold for passing shouldn’t be set too low.
The proposal for a February referendum was entertained because it will mean the vote will take place at the same time as the nationwide provincial administrative organisation elections, which politicians say will help save a great deal of budget and hassle.
However, Nikorn Chamnong, secretary of the House panel on the referendum bill, recently said a February referendum is unlikely.
He said the parliament could not convene a joint House-Senate meeting to consider the double-majority rule any time soon as the parliament is currently in recess and will not reconvene until next month.
With the selection of a chair of the new board of the Bank of Thailand (BoT) postponed twice, speculation is intensifying that the Finance Ministry may be stepping back and putting forward an alternative choice.
There is no doubt that the delay in finding a successor to Porametee Vimolsiri, whose term ended on Sept 16, is due to fierce opposition to the Finance Ministry’s candidate, Kittiratt Na-Ranong, for the post.
The government has indicated its intention to nominate its own candidate to succeed Mr Porametee, with Mr Kittiratt emerging as a likely contender.
Among the economists who argue against the government-supported candidate are four former central bank governors: MR Pridiyathorn Devakula, Tarisa Watanagase, Prasarn Trairatvorakul and Veerathai Santiprabhob, who have expressed their opposition to political representatives serving as chair of the central bank’s board.
While Mr Kittiratt is recognised as a professional who knows about finance and the treasury and meets the formal qualifications for the board chairman role, critics are concerned about what they insisted was his undeniable political affiliations with the ruling Pheu Thai Party.
He served as deputy leader and chief economic strategist for the ruling party and acted as chief adviser for former prime minister Srettha Thavisin.
There has been ongoing tension between central bank governor Sethaput Suthiwartnarueput and politicians over the cutting of interest rates to stimulate the economy.
While in office, Mr Srettha repeatedly asked the central bank to cut rates to support the government’s efforts to address economic woes, but Mr Sethaput stood his ground and persistently upheld the central bank’s independence.
The veteran politician’s past criticism of the central bank is also quite alarming for his critics. Some of Mr Kittiratt’s remarks about policy rates were interpreted as signs of political interference with the central bank’s Monetary Policy Committee.
According to the opposition People’s Party (PP) deputy leader Sirikanya Tansakun, Mr Kittiratt faces strong resistance because of his contentious relationship with the central bank.
When he served as finance minister during the Yingluck Shinawatra administration, Mr Kittiratt, who was also deputy prime minister, was known to put pressure on the central bank to lower interest rates to drive economic growth.
According to Ms Sirikanya, the former finance minister also expressed his frustration about the central bank and an intense desire to remove the central bank governor. He was quoted as saying he had the desire to remove the central bank governor several times a day.
The PP deputy leader and list MP dismissed claims that the board chairman has no power to adjust the policy rate, calling them “not totally true”.
The chairman still has a say in the selection of members of the central bank’s Monetary Policy Committee and needs only three votes in his favour to influence the committee’s decision, Ms Sirikanya said.
According to Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira, the board chairman does not really have that much decision-making authority because most of such authority usually lies with the board’s subcommittees.
While stressing that it is up to the selection committee to decide, Mr Pichai noted that the list of candidates can still be changed and the Finance Ministry and the central bank still have time to consider alternative candidates.
His remark is fuelling speculation that Mr Kittiratt’s candidacy may be withdrawn from consideration, and the Finance Ministry may present a new list of candidates at the next meeting scheduled for Monday.
Talks are widespread about the possible nomination of Pongpanu Svetarundra, a former permanent secretary for tourism and sports, for the post.
However, Thanaporn Sriyakul, director of the Political and Public Policy Analysis Institute, sees things differently, suggesting that the Finance Ministry is likely to continue backing Mr Kittiratt.
He said he does not see Mr Kittiratt as inferior to the other two candidates nominated by the ministry: former energy permanent secretary Kulit Sombatsiri and Surapon Nitikraipot, president of the Thammasat University Council and an independent director of PTT Plc.
Moreover, Mr Kittiratt has an advantage over the pair and Mr Pongpanu due to his political experience, which makes him a strong decision-maker and more open to public scrutiny and receptive to public opinion, according to Mr Thanaporn.
While the central bank’s inner circle harbours reservations about Mr Kittiratt, they should understand the economic system better than anyone else and realise that the economy is robust enough to withstand political interference that could undermine the country’s fiscal and monetary policies, Mr Thanaporn said.
“Even if the board chairman was able to affect the country’s monetary and fiscal policy negatively, the opposition still has the power to hold the finance minister accountable through a no-confidence debate,” Mr Thanaporn said.