Nikorn Lashes Out at Thung Over Blue Constitution Draft Accusations, Insists Newin Had No Involvement and Criticizes Unfair Attacks
Bhumjaithai MP Nikorn Chamnong defended his party's constitutional amendment draft on May 21, rejecting opposition accusations that it would create a pro-government assembly and denying former PM Newin had any involvement in its design.
On May 21, 2569 at Parliament, Nikorn Chamnong, Bhumjaithai list MP and one of the drafters of his party's constitutional amendment, responded to opposition criticism. He pointed out that when the government didn't endorse the opposition's draft, they accused the government of insincerity. When Bhumjaithai submitted its amendment as the first draft, problems emerged. Now that Bhumjaithai is proposing again in line with the Prime Minister's statement to follow the people's mandate, the opposition attacks once more. "Move left and they attack, move right and they attack—it's not fair," Nikorn said.
Regarding opposition claims that direct election of constitutional drafters contradicts constitutional court rulings, Nikorn asked who instigated those cases that led to the court's decision against direct elections. He explained that Bhumjaithai's design allows public applications with Parliament selecting candidates according to the court's ruling, with Parliament responsible for implementation.
Nikorn also addressed accusations that the draft would result in a "blue" (pro-government) constitutional assembly. He noted discussions with Deputy PM Prawit Wongsuwan and Bhumjaithai's legal team about dividing seats—200 for senators and 500 for representatives—proportionally by party. This reflects a majority-rule principle, he argued, where the ruling coalition naturally gets more seats.
Rejecting claims that former House Deputy Speaker Padipat Sanitphada made about Newin Chidchob's involvement in drafting, Nikorn firmly stated: "Newin never called me or Prawit. There's not a single word of his involvement." He criticized the opposition for making damaging accusations without evidence, calling their approach unfair and inconsistent.
