Alas, the reformist People’s Party (PP) has shot itself in the foot, once again. The latest botch happened on Dec 11 during the joint sitting of the Senate and the House to vote on the second reading of the charter amendment bill.
The PP was confident the bill would comfortably sail through the reading without any problem, but they were wrong.
Many Bhumjaithai Party MPs voted against the bill, regardless of the fact that the government whips had endorsed it. It was amended during the scrutiny process to delete the requirement that one-third of the votes from the Senate be needed for passage of the bill at its third reading.
The U-turn from the ruling Bhumjaithai Party’s MPs returned power back to the hands of the Senate.
Upset by the Bhumjaithai Party’s about-face, PP leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut threatened to submit a motion to House Speaker Wan Mohamad Noor Matha seeking a no-confidence debate against Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul and his cabinet.
Mr Natthaphong also dared the prime minister to dissolve the House to show accountability for the U-turn. He did not need to show defiance.
Indeed, it seems Mr Anutin had prepared to dissolve the House last week in advance. Wasting no time, a royal decree to dissolve the House was immediately sent to the Royal Palace for approval, before the PP submitted its no-confidence motion to the House speaker, which under the rules would normally prevent the prime minister from dissolving the House.
The House dissolution will nullify all bills which are pending in parliament, including the charter amendment bill, which is viewed by the PP as the key mechanism to advance its cherished goal for social reform or “change for the better” of Thai society.
It is not an understatement to say the PP has been obsessed with amending the constitution, specifically Article 256. This section will pave the way for the creation of a charter-drafting body.
Instead of using elected lawmakers and the parliamentary system, the PP has campaigned to have charter rewriters come from a national vote.
One may wonder whether the party truly believes that having a new charter is the panacea to all chronic problems besetting this country, from social injustice, poverty and bureaucratic corruption to inequality.
Thailand has had 20 charters in the past nine decades — or one new constitution every 4.5 years.
Quite a few people, royalists in particular, are sceptical about the true motives of the PP in seeking to write a new charter.
Whether the party wants to amend the sections regarding the monarchy is a big question mark and a concern for them. The PP has been cryptic about this stance.
Indeed, the charter amendment process could have been saved if the PP had not excluded the Senate from having a say in the process. Otherwise, the House would still be intact and functioning as normal.
The party simply blew away its opportunity. That was a pity for all its efforts.
Mr Anutin later said he dissolved the House because the PP leader told him to do so, and also because House dissolution after four months of his office was one of the conditions specified in his agreement with the PP.
But the true reason for his decision is that he would be ousted from the office if he had allowed the no-confidence debate to take place.
His party has already made preparations for the next election, which will put it in an advantageous position over its competitors. It has shuffled several governors and local officials who are widely viewed as important tools in election manipulation.
Although the government’s credibility has been dealt a huge blow for its failure to cope with the devastating flooding in Hat Yai last month, the party hopes the government will be able to recoup some lost credibility and win popularity from the war situation with Cambodia.
While nationalistic fever is running high, success on the battlefield and a peace deal that suits the objective of Thailand can turn into votes for the Bhumjaithai Party.
So far, the Thai military, with its superior military capabilities compared with Cambodia, is making traction on the battlefield.
But the war can’t afford to drag on until election day, tentatively expected on Feb 8, or both countries will be the losers due to the prohibitive costs to the economy and human lives.
In comparison, the two other major parties, the Pheu Thai Party and the PP, which are the real contenders against Bhumjaithai, are not faring any better.
Pheu Thai, in particular, is still reeling from the effects of the phone call controversy between Hun Sen and former prime minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, with quite a few people suspecting the current war between Thailand and Cambodia may originate from a conflict of vested interests between Hun Sen and some heavyweights in the party.
Worse still, the party’s spiritual leader, Thaksin Shinawatra, still remains in prison and won’t be able to help campaigning for the party.
The PP leader has expressed hope the party may, again, emerge as the winner in a landslide and has been appealing to the people for support for its promise of change for the betterment.
However, Mr Natthaphong’s comment pertaining to the war with Cambodia, with his suggestion of an early ceasefire with Cambodia for fear that Thailand may be viewed as a bully in the eyes of the international community, has upset quite a few people, especially among ultra-nationalists.
His suggestion of a diplomatic channel to resolve the conflict is rational, showing his dovish heart.
But he seems to have forgotten that diplomacy does not always work, particularly when the country needs to deal with a rogue state and tyrannical regime.
Can leaders like Hun Sen and his son, Hun Manet, who opens Cambodia to scammers, especially the Chinese, to establish scam centres to cheat people around the globe with impunity still can be trusted?
Will another peace accord, again mediated by Malaysia, like the one signed in late July in Kuala Lumpur, was treated like a piece of tissue paper by Hun Sen, with their constant violations and the planting of new anti-personnel landmines that have killed and maimed Thai soldiers, work?
Like having a thuggish neighbour next door and having nowhere else to go, we may have to live with this reality.
But did we have to quickly embrace him when he offered an olive branch? Does the tolerance and nicety mean that we have to squat in bunkers?
Or we should waive a big stick to show our rogue neighbour that we are not to be offended any more?
Crisis gives an opportunity to prove a man’s leadership quality, and Mr Natthaphong appears to have failed the test, probably because of his lack of experience, political immaturity and over-optimism.
The party and its mostly young members should learn from past mistakes. The time will come for them to shine, but not during the upcoming election.
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
