THE extra question to be asked in the charter referendum – suggested by the National Reform Steering Assembly – “gets right to the point”, National Legislative Assembly president Pornpetch Wichitcholchai said yesterday.

“This question is correct … There is only one issue [to be asked]. You cannot ask other questions,” he said.

The NLA voted last week to propose an additional referendum question on whether the public agrees that selected senators should be allowed to vote for the next prime minister for the five-year transitional period following the next general election.

Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) chairman Meechai Ruchupan said it was not known yet if the CDC would have to amend the charter draft’s provisional chapters or permanent chapters if the additional question were added and the charter was voted in. If the public votes to pass the charter, the 2014 interim charter stipulates that an amendment can be made to it within 30 days.

Meechai urged the NLA to think carefully about the question.

NRSA member Wanchai Sonsiri dismissed the reasons given by Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva for opposing the move to ask voters if they agree to allow appointed senators to vote for the PM.

Wanchai said the aim was not to blunt the power of MPs, who were elected by the people. “It is a move to join hands in restoring the country during the transition period because if we let only MPs select the PM, there could be conflicts like happened in the past,” he said.

“The move is not to pave the way for PM Prayut Chan-o-cha to become the next PM because he has already announced he would not take up the post,” he said.

NRSA member Seri Suwanpanont insisted that the NLA had not been ordered by anyone to propose the question. “We only want mechanisms to prevent conflicts, as we believe the charter lacks a mechanism to prevent political crises,” he said.

In response to the proposal to allow appointed senators to vote for the next PM, former Democrat Party leader Chuan Leekpai said he supported elections and upholding democratic principles.

“Regardless of having elections or appointments, both systems can provide good and bad people. Do not be afraid of elections. We have come so far. We tripped but that is OK. But do not step back,” he said.

Chuan lauded the CDC for using the anti-graft push to highlight the charter draft’s strengths. “It is a good strategy to make voters accept the charter. Anyone that opposes this draft means they approve of corruption,” he said.

“Actually, the charter draft was not written to directly suppress corruption. The charter draft was written to have effective balance mechanisms among agencies.

“Do not focus too much on the charter as the deciding factor. The charter is just a tool to run the country. Elections are the heart of democracy.”

Banjerd Singkaneti, dean of law at the National Institute Development Administration, said the charter draft had strong enough anti-corruption measures and other mechanisms to keep a government in check over its financial and monetary discipline.

“The draft provides hope for the people. At least people are given the mandate to decide how they want the country to move forward,” he said.