Thailand’s Charter Rewrite: MPs Split Over Public-Nominated vs Expert Panel

When Thailand’s lawmakers gather for the second reading of charter amendments on December 10, they will face a stark choice between two competing blueprints for drafting a new constitution—one championed by Pheu Thai that seeks to layer in public selection, and another from the ruling Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) that leans on a leaner expert committee.

Grassroots ambitions meet institutional caution

Pheu Thai’s design would begin with direct nominations of 300 candidates by voters nationwide, trimming that pool to 100 individuals whom parliament then empowers to form the Constitution Drafting Committee. Advocates in the party argue this structure ensures meaningful citizen input and builds a shield against elite dominance by demanding endorsements from at least one-fifth of senators and 20% of opposition MPs. Spokesman Chusak Sirinil insists the proposal respects the Constitutional Court’s ban on direct elections of charter writers, since the final drafter appointments flow through an indirectly chosen assembly rather than a single popular vote.

Palang Pracharath Party’s expert committee

On the other side, PPRP MP Phanida Mongkolsawat of Samut Prakan warns that the multi-stage process would bog down reforms and risk endless bargaining. Instead, her review panel has backed a straight-to-expert model: a 35-member Constitutional Drafting Committee picked by lawmakers under a “20 pick 1” formula. PPRP contends that a streamlined team of specialists can deliver a new charter more swiftly and with greater legal clarity—avoiding procedural stalling and factional gridlock.

Constitutional Court boundaries

A key constraint looms over both plans: the September 10 ruling of Thailand’s Constitutional Court, which requires up to three referendums on any new charter and prohibits a single, direct popular election of drafters. That decision has forced all parties to design indirect pathways for public participation. While Pheu Thai sees its two-tier selection as a lawful workaround, PPRP insists that simplicity is the only way to stay within the court’s tight parameters.

Implications for Thai citizens

For everyday voters—from Bangkok commuters to small-town entrepreneurs—the outcome will determine how closely the next constitution reflects public will. A drawn-out drafting assembly could push back urgent policy debates on healthcare, foreign investment incentives, or rural development programs. Conversely, a smaller expert body risks being portrayed as an elite carve-out unless it actively seeks community consultations. Trust in the process will hinge on transparency, clear timelines, and real opportunities for ordinary Thais to weigh in.

Lessons from abroad

Throughout Asia and beyond, participatory constitutional projects offer cautionary tales and success stories. South Africa’s post-Apartheid consultations, through a “Taking Parliament to the People” framework, collected over 2 million submissions by embedding lawmakers in local forums. Taiwan’s protracted Sunflower Movement debates led to stringent referendum thresholds and citizen advisory councils—demonstrating that broad engagement must be matched by clear procedural rules. Thailand’s reformers could draw on these examples to calibrate a hybrid system that blends expert guidance with genuine public outreach.

What comes next

As the parliament floor lights up on December 10–11, both camps vow to press their case. Will lawmakers side with Pheu Thai’s call for a people-powered assembly, or will PPRP’s push for a compact, expert-driven committee prevail? The decision will set the tone not only for the next charter but for how Thais understand their role in shaping the highest law of the land. Observers say a middle path—one that marries expertise with grassroots legitimacy—may be the only route to durable reform.