Bangkok: Prit insists that the “Chairman of the Constitution Amendment Committee” should belong to the “People” because it is the main body. Paritta revealed plans to convene the Constitutional Amendment Committee on October 20. He insisted that the committee chairman should belong to the “people” as it is the main draft. He pointed out that the key variable is the Referendum Act, which has not yet been enacted. He emphasized that the origin of the Constituent Assembly does not conflict with the Constitutional Court’s ruling and was not concerned about not passing the third reading. He believed that the Senate could be clarified.
According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Panusaya Wacharasindhu, a party-list MP and spokesman for the People’s Party, proposed the amendment to Section 256 of the Constitution, adding Chapter 15/1, on behalf of the People’s Party, which is the main draft for consideration by the committee. The first meeting of the Special Committee on Constitutional Amendment is scheduled for Monday, October 20, 2025, at 2:00 PM. The committee will primarily consider the timeframe, as the committee must fully complete its work within two months to ensure it is returned to the House for consideration in the second and third readings, and to ensure a timely referendum and election.
Mr. Pris continued, stating that he personally believed the deliberations would proceed smoothly. All issues on which each side differed were discussed, opinions exchanged, and conclusions reached on each issue. Subsequently, the text of each section was considered to determine whether any adjustments were needed. Regarding the nomination of the committee chair, Mr. Pris stated that, with the People’s Party’s draft constitutional amendment as the primary draft, the chair should come from the People’s Party, although whether or not he or she is elected would depend on the meeting’s decision.
When asked how the matter would be resolved if there was a competition for the chairman position, Mr. Pris stated that he was unaware of any other parties’ nominations. However, from the Prachachon Party’s perspective, he emphasized that since the Prachachon Party’s draft is the primary draft, it is appropriate for the Prachachon Party to assume the chairmanship. The party will propose Nattawut Buapatum, a party-list MP for the Prachachon Party. If other parties also submit nominations, a vote will be taken, but he believes this will not hinder the work. More important than the chairman is the substance, as there are still many points of disagreement. Therefore, a resolution to the issues of disagreement must be reached as quickly as possible.
“No matter which draft the parliament approves, it must be put to the public’s attention in a referendum. If the draft doesn’t meet the public’s needs, there’s a good chance it won’t pass the referendum. Therefore, I urge parliamentarians to be mindful of the need for a draft that the public will approve,” said Mr. Pris.
Mr. Pris added that the key variable now is whether the new Referendum Act will receive royal approval. He sees no reason not to grant it, and we will know for sure on November 3rd. If it does, it will be in accordance with the timeline, with third reading passage by mid-January 2026 at the latest. However, we want it to pass by the end of December 2025, which means second reading must begin in mid-December. If that happens, the committee will have a full two months to consider it. However, it would be better if it could be done sooner.
Regarding the referendum question, Mr. Pris stated that the question is not complicated. If the draft constitution currently under consideration passes the third reading, the first round of the referendum will have two questions, as already stipulated in the Constitutional Court’s ruling. Therefore, the question is not complicated. However, the important thing now is to ensure that we have the draft constitutional amendment, Chapter 15/1, passed the third reading in time and that its content meets the needs of the people.
When asked about concerns about the potential lack of a Constitutional Court ruling on the formation of the Constituent Assembly (CA), which could lead to petitions being filed with the court and delay the process, Mr. Panusaya stated that prior to September 10th, the three main parties agreed on an elected Constituent Assembly. However, the elected CA would be difficult to continue due to the Constitutional Court’s ruling. Therefore, if everyone maintains their current stance, they should strive to maximize public participation without violating the Constitutional Court’s ruling.
Mr. Panusaya stated that the People’s Party insists that its proposal does not violate the court’s ruling, as the court merely stated that “the people are not allowed to directly choose the drafters.” Therefore, we indirectly choose the drafters, and therefore believe that there is nothing that violates the court’s ruling. However, we must listen to other opinions. Regarding whether or not someone will file a complaint with the Constitutional Court, this matter is not something that anyone can do. It requires two steps: 1. It requires a majority vote of Parliament. If this vote is not achieved, who can file a complaint? Therefore, we should use the mechanisms of the legislature and committees to carefully examine the content and determine whether or not it violates the Constitutional Court’s ruling. 2. If it passes the third reading, MPs or Senators have the right to file a complaint based on a one-in-tenth vote. However, that is the end of the matter. At that point, we hope everyone will agree that there is
nothing that violates the court’s ruling.
“I understand that the political system we’re in, under the 2017 Constitution, has caused many concerns. I’m sure there will be complaints, but I insist that if all three parties firmly believe they won’t, no one will,” said Mr. Pris.
When asked about concerns that Chapters 1 and 2 of the Constitution could be overturned in the third reading, Mr. Panusaya stated that it was the right of parliamentarians and committee members to discuss whether to include the same provisions as the 2017 Constitution. This is a different matter from the accusation that allowing Chapters 1 and 2 to be considered tantamount to overthrowing the government. The 2017 Constitution also allows for changes to the wording of Chapters 1 and 2, but this must be done through a referendum. Therefore, differing opinions are allowed, but nothing that constitutes overthrowing the government must be discussed rationally. He added that if other chapters of the Constitution are revised in the future, some wording in Chapters 1 and 2 may need to be revised to align with the other chapters. This will not affect the essential principles of the constitutional system, which are already locked in place; the content of each chapter should be aligned. Therefore, he believes this issue
should not be raised as an attack issue.
When asked if the third reading would require the Senate’s approval, Mr. Pris said that the committee’s approval of the draft was a matter of confidence. He stated that the third reading certainly required the Senate’s approval, but that the public must be able to answer whether the draft would be accepted by the public if it passed the third reading. He added that a balance must be struck on all points. He believes the committee will act with reason and logic, and that this presents a good opportunity to reach a direct understanding with the Senate.