Bangkok: The constitutional amendment bill failed to pass its third reading, with officials highlighting that the public did not participate in voting on all the articles. Mr. Chulaphan Amornvivat, leader of the Pheu Thai Party and prime ministerial candidate, addressed comments made by Mr. Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, chairman of the Progressive Movement, during an interview. Mr. Thanathorn claimed the bill's failure was partly due to Pheu Thai MPs not aligning their votes with the majority of the committee.
According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Chulaphan suggested that Mr. Thanathorn review the voting process on each article, noting that even candidates from the People's Party did not vote on every article, which he deemed normal. He assured that the Pheu Thai Party had its full roster of MPs present as requested by Mr. Nattapong Ruangpanyawut, the People's Party leader, before the vote. Mr. Chulaphan urged Mr. Thanathorn to focus on the procedures and the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to identify any flaws and assess potential damage to the nation.
Mr. Chulaphan further commented on the notion that passing the second reading was sufficient for progress, expressing skepticism and attributing it to a misunderstanding of the facts. He acknowledged his bluntness, but emphasized that, at the time, it was evident the Bhumjaithai Party supported the Senate, and even if the bill advanced to the third reading, it would not succeed.
He warned that a lack of recognition of this situation could lead to ongoing misguidance. Mr. Chulaphan mentioned that he had previously cautioned the People's Party about factions resistant to constitutional amendments, which rendered the MOA unfeasible. He advised a return to the electoral focus, advocating for a composed approach.
When questioned about the possibility of blame being shifted to the Pheu Thai Party, Mr. Chulaphan reaffirmed that those familiar with the circumstances understood that the constitutional amendment was unlikely to reach the third reading, and even if it had, it would not have been approved. He concluded that the initial agreement was unattainable from the outset, expressing uncertainty on how to clarify the situation further.