Last month, I blogged:
btw, I think that one of the provisions that should be amended is Section 291 to require a referendum to amend provisions of the Constitution.
BP: I was going to mention it is surprising that no one was first calling to amend this provision first well Abhisit makes the a good call as the Bangkok Post reports:
The opposition Democrat party says it will push for the amendment of a single article of the constitution that would allow members of the public to take part in the government's attempt to amend the charter.
...
Democrat and opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday his party would propose a draft amendment to change Article 291 of the 2007 constitution.
The move follows the earlier action of a group of senators, who also proposed a change to Article 291 to allow the public to participate in the charter rewrite.
The proposal would enable outsiders to have an input, instead of the process of change being monopolised by political parties, Mr Abhisit said. Article 291 makes the job of amending the constitution the business of only the government and the parliament.
''I hope that people will not surround the parliament if the government starts to welcome the idea of a participatory amendment and lets the constitutional amendment be a truly public process.
''A crisis can be averted. Present conflicts are being caused by the government,'' Mr Abhisit said.
BP: This is a good stalling provision. I see at as a coherent procedural argument as it actually directly addresses Section 291.* I think it would be politically difficult to be against amending Section 291. I mean what are you going to say, that you are against changing the law allowing for voters to directly vote on the constitution.
PPP would probably be better advised to follow Suthin's proposal and say they will have a referendum anyway after the second reading and include amending Section 291 in the amendments to be submitted to parliament. I wonder how the critics will respond if there will be a referendum. All their arguments about the need for direct democracy suddenly go out the window.
* The counter argument could be if politicians can then amend this one provision why not Section 237 and Section 309 at the same time.
Any more 'news' on this matter?
I would have asked the question in the appropriate topic, but for some reason comments do not seem to be allowed on the original blog post.