Thailand Lawmakers Advance Constitution Draft as PM Mulls Snap Poll

The tug-of-war over Thailand’s next constitution is nearing its most unpredictable phase. Two marathon days inside Parliament have produced provisional approval for a brand-new drafting process, yet the entire enterprise could still evaporate if political brinkmanship leads to an early House dissolution.

Snapshot of the week’s fast-moving drama

• Second-reading vote sailed through 328–266, endorsing a plan to hire 2 parallel bodies of 35 members each—one to write the charter, the other to keep citizens in the loop.

• A fierce row over Section 256/28 revived the old question of whether the Senate must retain a veto in the final stage.

• After a late-night reversal, the amendment bill was pulled for redrafting, and Parliament petitioned Cabinet to call a referendum.

• Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul signalled he might disband the House rather than face a censure motion, a decision that would terminate the charter push.

Special sitting: victories, U-turns and a midnight adjournment

Law-makers convened on 10–11 December for an emergency meeting that many hoped would give the long-promised constitutional overhaul irreversible momentum. The early optimism proved short-lived. While MPs and senators agreed on a 360-day deadline for the Charter Drafting Committee (CDC) and endorsed the much-debated “20 pick 1” nomination rule, unity collapsed when the chamber reached Section 256/28. Progressives wanted a simple majority to adopt the finished text; conservatives insisted on the current demand for one-third of senators. The latter camp eked out a 329–302 win.

That margin was enough to persuade CDC chair Nattawut Buapratum to withdraw the entire bill for further editing, arguing that the vote raised contradictions with other clauses. Minutes before midnight, the Speaker read a royal decree closing the extraordinary session—leaving supporters of a swift rewrite stunned.

Why the “20 pick 1” formula matters so much

Under the compromise mechanism, every bloc of 20 parliamentarians—be they MPs or senators—may submit one CDC nominee, producing a pool from which 35 drafters and 35 public-participation overseers will be chosen. Proponents tout it as a court-compliant detour around direct elections, which the Constitutional Court outlawed in 2021. They add that the rule gives minorities a fighting chance to plant their experts in the room.

Sceptics see the opposite. Analysts such as Siripan Nogsuan warn the set-up still lets the larger parties “stack the deck,” because they can form numerous groups of 20. Pheu Thai has floated an elected Constituent Assembly of 151 seats as a fairer option; others suggest a “10 pick 1” tweak to dilute big-party muscle.

The Senate arithmetic and the looming third reading

Even if the bill re-emerges intact, it faces a well-known cliff: passage demands not only a simple joint majority but also 67 of 200 senators. Several upper-house members told the Bangkok press they are “open in principle” yet non-committal about the final draft. Observers suspect that if the amendment fails, the public will blame Bhumjaithai—Anutin’s party—which enjoys cordial relations with many appointed senators. That perception explains why some insiders believe the government cannot afford a visible Senate veto and may prefer to let the issue die quietly through dissolution.

Dissolve or fight? Anutin’s high-stakes choice

The opposition People’s Party has tabled—but not yet filed—a no-confidence motion. Rumours swirl that Pheu Thai lacks the 99 signatures needed to lodge it, yet the threat alone gives the prime minister an exit door: dissolve the House, campaign on returning power to the people, and postpone the charter debate. Coalition allies are split. Bhumjaithai strategists note the party is still rebuilding support after the southern floods and would rather avoid a snap poll before mid-2026. People’s Party figures counter that abandoning the amendment after championing it in the election would look like bad faith.

What ordinary Thais say they want in a new constitution

Polls released at the Constitution Day forum this week highlighted citizen priorities: stronger due-process guarantees, broader basic rights, and explicit healthcare protections came top. Many respondents also demanded clearer rules for free expression—issues largely absent from Thailand’s 2017 charter. Yet public patience is thin. Advocacy network CALL says voters are tired of elite manoeuvring and want a process they can recognise as theirs.

The road ahead: twin referenda, another bill, or fresh ballots?

Three scenarios are now on the table:

Cabinet swiftly forwards referendum Question 1—“Should we start a new charter?”—giving authorities legal cover to revisit the bill in the next regular session.

The prime minister dissolves Parliament, triggering a joint general election–referendum day that could deliver both a new legislature and a popular mandate for redrafting in March.

Political stalemate drags on, pushing any charter overhaul beyond 2026.

For Thais wary of déjà vu, the coming weeks will reveal whether the promise of a people-centred constitution finally moves from podium slogan to concrete plan—or slips, once again, into the gap between parliamentary arithmetic and street-level impatience.