Charter push is risky

It is rare to see a ruling party and a main opposition party join hands in rewriting the constitution. But such is the case with the Pheu Thai Party and the People’s Party, a reincarnation of the Move Forward Party, as they push with all their might to amend some sections of the junta-sponsored 2017 constitution.
On Friday, the ruling Pheu Thai Party submitted its first draft of proposed amendments to parliament for deliberation. It remains a question of how far these amendments can sail through and whose interest they will truly serve.
A key driver for Pheu Thai’s haste in the push for the amendments is the recent 5:4 Constitutional Court ruling which removed former prime minister Srettha Thavisin from office for severe ethical violations. The ruling came after Mr Srettha appointed Pichit Chuenban, an ex-convict in a bribery case, as a minister of the Prime Minister’s Office.
Judging by the key points of Pheu Thai’s proposed amendments, Pheu Thai will face an uphill battle to justify how these amendments will serve the public interest rather than politicians.
For example, one proposal seeks to change the Constitutional Court’s decision-making process to remove a prime minister, minister or political office-holder.
Currently, the court can remove such figures with a 5:4 majority, like the case of Mr Srettha. Pheu Thai proposes boosting the jurists’ vote threshold to two-thirds, meaning six out of the nine judges would need to agree. This change would make it harder to remove politicians from office.
Other amendments address the ethical standards of ministers. Pheu Thai proposes revising the application of “ethical standards” on MPs, senators and ministers.
Another proposed change involves the qualifications needed to become a minister. Currently, a person cannot serve if they have violated ethical standards, but the amendment would allow those not currently on trial in the Supreme Court to qualify.
Furthermore, Pheu Thai proposes amending the eligibility requirements for parliamentary candidates.
Currently, anyone who has been sentenced to prison within the last 10 years cannot run for office, except in cases of negligence or other minor offences. The new amendment would also exempt defamation cases, benefiting politicians who tend to engage in defamation offences.
The 2017 constitution, seen as the legacy of a military coup, needs modification. Yet the amendment must serve the public and national interest — not made for the benefit of politicians themselves.
In the upcoming debate in parliament, the Bhumjaithai Party — which is believed to have 150 allied senators in the Upper Chamber — could be a decider.
The support of at least one-thirds of the 200 senators, or 67 votes, is required for the first reading to pass when amending the constitution.
If the party sides with Pheu Thai’s proposal, it must clear one big question: How will these changes uphold the ethical standards of political officeholders?
Again, Pheu Thai is playing with fire by attempting to redefine, if not water down, ethical standards, which can make it easier for some dubious politicians to ascend to power.
This move goes against the public’s need to see greater accountability in the way politicians govern. By pushing for these amendments, the ruling party risks eroding public trust and may face a significant backlash from society as a result.