Govt ‘open’ to public input on draft bill

The government is open to suggestions from all sides on whether Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha should send the organic bill on the election of MPs to the Constitution Court for a validity check, says Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam.

Mr Wissanu admitted the validity issue has divided people.

Some want the bill, one of the most important organic laws for organising the next general election, to be vetted by the Constitutional Court before it is passed into law.

However, others, including the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), have been insisting that the bill does not need to be checked, claiming that nothing in the bill, including the two contentious points, defies the constitution.

The two sticking points have been the loss of rights of an individual who fails to vote at a general election to being appointed to a public office; and disabled voters being allowed to bring someone to a polling station to help them cast their ballots.

NLA president Pornpetch Witchitcholchai said earlier the loss of rights affected only a negligible number of voters, while letting the disabled have a helper when casting their ballots is a widely practiced norm.

The bill has now passed the NLA and once it is submitted to the prime minister, Gen Prayut will have five days to decide whether to petition the Constitutional Court or forward the bill for royal endorsement.

Mr Wissanu said since the validity check was a controversial issue, the government is receptive to arguments and counterarguments on the subject.

He said the issue will be considered by the cabinet and the input from the public will be taken into account before Gen Prayut decides what to do with the bill.

However, the deputy premier acknowledged that the conspiracy theory was gaining traction as some critics seemed convinced that petitioning the Constitutional Court increased the possibility of the next general election being delayed beyond its deadline of February next year.

There are others who believe that enacting the bill with its constitutional concerns still unresolved would trigger legal complications in the future.