Chusak”, Minister of the Prime Minister’s Office, revealed that “Phumtham” has scheduled a meeting with the coalition parties on 1 Oct. to gather opinions and update on the constitutional amendment. He plans to ask for votes from the Senate to support the amendment of the ethics of politicians. He emphasized that the anti-corruption constitution was not cancelled. It was just made clear and to cut the problem of complaints that would affect the establishment of the government to administer the country.
Mr. Chusak Sirinil, Minister attached to the Prime Minister’s Office, talked about the progress after the Pheu Thai Party submitted a draft amendment to the constitution, on the issue of politicians’ ethics, that on the afternoon of Tuesday, October 1, Mr. Phumtham Vejjayachai, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense, will meet with the coalition parties to discuss the amendment to the constitution that the Pheu Thai Party and the Prachachon Party are currently proposing, to see what the coalition parties think, and to discuss and update on past and present matters, such as how far along the drafting of the new constitution is, what the referendum law is, and when it will start, and when the draft amendment to Section 256 of the constitution will be drafted, and a conclusion will be reached on these matters.
As for the proposed amendment to the ethical issues that have been questioned and criticized as being for their own benefit or political gain, will it be able to pass the first reading of the parliament meeting? Mr. Chusak said that we understand well how people in society feel about the origin of the 2017 constitution. He emphasized that the amendment is to make it fairer, clearer, with clearer regulations and guidelines. He emphasized that it is not a cancellation of what is written in the anti-corruption constitution, but rather to consider clearly what kind of behavior and when, so that there will be no problems in terms of performing duties. Because in the past, these issues have become problems for the administration of the country. It takes time, questions, and chaos before a government can be formed. He emphasized that we are not canceling or revoking anything, but only making the law clear, creating guidelines and standards, and how to measure it.
Mr. Chusak said that soon there will be a drafting of a new constitution, but since there are problems, we choose important issues that should be fixed to prevent problems in the administration of the country. We will revise the whole constitution again. We have this period of time, so we have to ask the media whether they think this will continue to be a problem or not, because many people have analyzed that it will continue to be a problem in the administration of the country, such as the problem of the qualifications of ministers, which will cause complaints and raise ethics issues. Therefore, we would like to ask the media how they will measure it. We want to create clear standards and indicators, not cancel or revoke anything, just make it clearer.
When asked if he had started talking to the senators to ask for their support, Mr. Chusak said that there would have to be discussions because the senators are a part of the parliament that must be approved, otherwise it will not work.
As for the report, studying the approach to the amnesty law to be proposed to the parliament, but when will this draft be counted, Mr. Chusak said that it depends on the resolution of the meeting. What will it do? Will it be sent to the government or to the political party to draft? If the government or political party takes it into consideration, will it be drafted in any way?
When asked about sensitive issues such as whether Article 112 of the Criminal Code would be a condition and prevent the meeting from reaching a conclusion, Mr. Chusak said that the report did not specify whether to accept or not, but was presented. Everything was for consideration on what to do, which was up to the government’s discretion. The final decision had to be drafted, and what to include was up to the implementers. He did not have the authority to force them. The report had many options for consideration, but which one to consider was at the government’s discretion and could not be enforced. There was nothing that could force the government to enact a law because they were separate matters. The government’s discretion was to propose a law. It might not have proposed it yet.
When studying the report, if the government does not take any action, will the consideration of the report be considered in vain? Mr. Chusak insists that it is not in vain. The government may pass a resolution to send it to political parties to propose a draft law. The parliament has no power to force the government to do this or that. The Pheu Thai Party itself has not discussed whether to propose its own draft or not. We have to ask what they think about it.
Source: Thai News Agency