Bangkok: Panthil Nuamchim, a prominent Bangkok MP from the Prachachon Party and member of the parliamentary committee scrutinizing the draft constitutional amendment, has strongly criticized the Pheu Thai Party for allegedly distorting the facts surrounding the rejection of the Constituent Assembly. He urged Pheu Thai members to cease their public commentary on the issue. Panthil described the meeting atmosphere as being dominated by senior figures employing various tactics to delay proceedings. He asserted that these actions were aimed at finding justifications to reject the constitutional amendment and label the public as “blue-collar.”
According to Thai News Agency, Panthil elaborated that the meeting had concluded with a majority vote on the origins of the constitutional drafting committee, consisting of 35 members nominated by the populace and selected by Parliament-an approach not in line with the Prachachon Party’s advocacy for direct popular elections. Further discussions are anticipated to define candidate qualifications for the committee, ensuring representation across regions, specific issues, and expertise.
Panthil further claimed that the Pheu Thai Party members had distorted facts by asserting that the Prachachon Party, in collaboration with the Bhumjaithai Party, had opposed the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA). He clarified that the committee meeting’s proposed CDA was not elected but appointed, rendering the proposal insignificant. The Prachachon Party’s model, which called for elections, was dismissed by the committee, necessitating an alternative mechanism.
Panthil emphasized that the primary drafts endorsed belonged to the Prachachon and Bhumjaithai parties, while the Pheu Thai Party’s draft was initially dismissed. Despite this, senior figures were still respectfully permitted to debate its merits and drawbacks. He questioned the Pheu Thai Party’s genuine intent to amend the constitution, accusing them of stalling and complicating the process to hinder a second reading debate. He also criticized attempts to brand the Prachachon Party as aligned with the Blue Party, describing this as an unrelated issue.
He also highlighted that broadcasting the committee’s proceedings would reveal the slow and challenging progression of each issue. Acknowledging the necessity of thoroughness, he condemned the perceived attempts to manipulate the process. Panthil advised against using misleading headlines and noted that Mr. Somkid Chuekong, a Pheu Thai Party member not on the committee, should refrain from commenting, suggesting that Pheu Thai committee members should be the ones to voice their concerns.
In response to inquiries about the significance of the Constitution Drafting Committee vote compared to the Constituent Assembly, Panthil affirmed its importance due to its inclusion in the main draft adopted by Parliament.