A joint session of parliament has withdrawn its previous approval of a draft amendment of a law on royal decorations after the King vetoed it by not giving his signature within 90 days, provoking criticism of the royal prerogative having influence over the people’s representatives.

A file photo of the parliament

According to the legal watchdog iLaw, the draft aimed to amend the Chulachomklao Insignia Act B.E. 2484 (1941) by repealing Sections 9 and 10 which allow a son of a bearer at the Chulachomklao level to inherit the decorations.

The bill was approved by the lower house on 22 December 2021 and passed by the upper house on 17 January 2022. The three readings in both houses were done in one day, signifying a smooth legislative process. 

The bill then waited 90 days for the King’s signature to be officially enacted in line with the Constitution; the draft was sent back to Parliament without the signature for reconsideration. According to Section 146 of the 2017 Constitution, a bill without the King’s signature can still be enacted if two-thirds of both houses insisted on passing the law.

In the Tuesday session, however, the vote turned out otherwise as 431 MPs decided to drop the bill, 28 MPs abstained, and one MP voted for approval (he later said he pushed the wrong button).

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam, a legal expert, said during the parliamentary session that the government did not know the reason for the King’s veto. But from his inquiries to the Royal Palace Office, it may be that there are many more provisions in the Act that should be amended because the law has been in use for a long time.

Rangsiman Rome, MP from the Move Forward Party, said before the vote that he and his party did not disagree with the draft content, but the law-making process by the people’s representatives consumed a great amount of time and budget. As the King is the one exercising the power of the people, according to the Constitution, he wanted to hear the exact reason for the veto, not a guess from the Deputy PM.

“My speech here is intended to create clarity. Otherwise, this will become a norm that will continue.  … We, as the people's representatives, will not have the right to know sufficient facts about what has happened. And the government’s explanation of this kind, with all due respect to the chair, is not an explanation that protects the monarchy, because all you have done is guess without giving reasons,” said Rangsiman.

Somchai Sawangkarn, an appointed senator, said the King’s power to veto laws has been written into the Constitution since the 1932 revolution. The bestowing of Chulachomklao royal decorations was also within the King’s pleasure. The senator found Wissanu’s remark sufficient to dismiss the bill. To continue the parliamentary debate would only stir the senate’s dismay.

It is a rare occurrence for a law to be vetoed by the King despite it being a constitutional power. It is a controversial question under a democratic regime for the monarch to take a stance over a particular item of legislation. During the reign of the late King Rama IX, there were three vetoes in 1992 and 2003.

In other European countries, it was way further down the past as the last veto in UK was in 1708, 1865 for Denmark, and 1912 for Sweden.

The ability to take time to consider and hold up a law represents the political power of the monarch who is not elected.

The power to veto laws has been increasing since the 1932 coup. The temporary 1932 Constitution gave the King 7 days to consider a law, then 30 days in the permanent version. The 1949 Constitution, written by a pro-monarchy junta, extended the period to 90 days. 

In the 1949 Constitution, if the King vetoed a law, the draft would be reconsidered by parliament. It required two-thirds of lawmakers to re-affirm the law. The draft would then be sent back for the royal signature. If the law was not signed within 30 days, the draft law would be automatically enacted.

The 2017 Constitution copies the details of the veto process from of the 1949 Constitution.

Regarding the monarch’s power and the people’s power, Bawornsak Uwanno, a renowned law professor has stated that during the reign of the late King Rama IX, due to his high legitimacy, the government had to be accountable to the parliament and people in the name of the King. Hence, parliament should not reject the King’s veto because it would face criticism and the people’s opposition.

By contrast, after parliament’s vote, Anon Nampa, a human rights lawyer and a prominent monarchy critic, posted on Facebook his disappointment over parliament setting a new norm over the monarch’s power in the legislative process and called on parliament to take a stance and insist on passing the bill. And as this was taking place, people who stood for democratic values have been heavily harassed by the royal defamation law.

Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, former MP from the dissolved Future Forward Party and former law lecturer, posted after the Parliament vote that the veto power should be removed in order to prevent the monarchy from being led into the political realm.

The former law professor also stated that as the draft was proposed by the cabinet and approved by parliament, but vetoed by the King and later voted down by parliament, the cabinet should take responsibility by resigning.

Beside vetoing this bill, the junta government amended the constitution that had already been passed in the 2016 referendum in line with the King’s request to change the provisions concerning the monarch’s power.