BECAUSE of widespread criticism, the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) at first was hesitant to share its forums nationwide with the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) to enable it to explain an additional question proposed to go with the referendum on the charter draft.

The NLA’s question asks that whether, in order for the reform work to be carried out continuously in line with the national strategy in the five-year transitional period, the two houses of Parliament should jointly select a prime minister.

But they eventually managed to share the forums, with the NLA solely responsible for clarifications on the additional question.

NLA vice president Surachai Liengboonlertchai talked to The Nation’s Piyaporn Wongruang on why the NLA had proposed the question, and how it would help

resolve the problems the country faces.

SO, YOU HAVE EVENTUALLY decided TO USE THE SAME FORUMS as THE CDC?

Yes, we have. An NLA panel just held a meeting to discuss further details on how to arrange the public relations campaigns.

[The panel meeting on Friday fleshed out its campaigns, which would see the NLA share the stage nationwide with the CDC.]

many questions continue to be raised about the additional QUESTION. SO HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THIS QUESTION?

To answer how this question was devised, we may need to go back to the interim charter put in place in 2014.

If you remember, the interim charter previously stated that the NLA and the now-defunct National Reform Council [NRC] were tasked with proposing an additional question each in the referendum. If the previous draft by Borwornsak [Uwanno] had not been aborted, we would have seen the two questions proposed to go along with the referendum.

But as the NRC was dissolved, and the interim charter was amended, the National Reform Steering Assembly, having replaced the NRC, would only propose the questions to us, and we were tasked with finalising only one question to go with the referendum. So the task started from there, and the interim-charter amendment has specially addressed our task this way – to have the NLA propose one question to go with the referendum.

WHAT HAPPENED AFTERWARDs?

After the CDC had finished the charter draft, the NRSA met and discussed the questions before resolving to have a question with similar details. Roughly, they agreed that during the transitional period, there should be a mechanism to supervise reform work, and that’s why a joint selection of a prime minister by the two houses was proposed.

The NLA afterwards took the NRSA proposal for further consideration and with the majority of votes, we agreed with the NRSA’s question. But what we did was just tweak the wording. So you can see that the question was not proposed without lead-ups. It is actually the same old issue addressed in the first version of the interim charter.

WHY DO WE NEED SUCH a QUESTiON? And WHAT RESULT Does THE NLA EXPECT TO SEE FROM HAVING SUCH a QUESTION PASSED?

To answer this question, we may have to go back to what’s written in the charter draft by Ajarn Meechai [Ruchupan, the CDC chief]. In the draft, they have proposed a chapter regarding the country’s reform and they have designed that the Senate during the transitional period would help supervise the work.

The point is the draft has addressed the Senate’s duty, but it has failed to address its power. So that’s the point where we picked up to figure out how to help the Senate perform as required.

This would be dependent on the administration as well as the prime minister. So a capable prime minister should be selected jointly by the houses, and that’s the idea that the NRSA had proposed in order for us to get ” special mechanisms” to help accomplish the task.

You can see that the NRSA and the NLA may initiate the idea, but in the end it’s not they who will make a decision. We did not shoot down the idea, or say yes, let us do it this way. As it’s about the country’s critical reform, we thought the people should make the decision.

DO YOU THINK such a question WOULD LEAD US away from the DEMOCRATIC PATH?

The referendum is a democratic process. In principle, a referendum is in place to help accomplish two major purposes: one is about having a decision on a very critical law, the other is about having a decision on issues of importance to the country.

The referendum this time has both contexts. We are going to have a decision on the new constitution, and we are going to decide what is asked in the question, which is critical to the country. So that’s the reason we decided to go ahead with the referendum. It is direct participation in decision-making. We should not exaggerate. Why we have come to this point is made clear in the charter draft. They are the key words, and if we forget these, we would be bogged down with doubts and speculation all over again, such as why an outsider prime minister, and so on.

BUT YOU STILL THINK the QUESTION was necessary?

If we go back to the time before the coup, you may remember that we had different political camps making demands. One said reform before an election, the other said an election before reform. But what both sides agreed was the country needed reform, right? So they saw the same thing – that this country had a serious problem.

It’s a challenge for all of us, and that’s why reform has become part of the new attempt addressed in Ajarn Meechai’s charter draft, with the selected Senate proposed, and so on, to ensure that we would not waste our time and efforts.

Our duty was how to make the people see the point and make the right decision towards the future. It’s a shared responsibility, and I view this as a joint duty for us all.

YOU do NOT THINK THE QUESTiON has the potential to LEAD TO A NEW CONFLICT?

I don’t think so. If people have information, like what we are trying to explain, I believe they will make the right decision.