Ten NLA members reneged on their support for the bill, which was submitted by NLA member Phaisal Phuetmongkhol. Without their support only 23 member were willing to sign the bill, two short of what was required for it to pass.

The bill was aimed at seeking amendments to changes to the 1962 Sangha Act. If passed, the monk who leads the committee that functions on behalf of His Holiness the Supreme Patriarch in the event he is incapable of performing his duties, would be chosen according to how long he has been in the monkhood, not by his ecclesiastical title.

Phaisal had said earlier that he did not believe that any of the 32 members who originally pledged their support to the bill would withdraw it.

"I regard anyone who would do that as having no dignity," he had said.

General Preecha Rojjanasen, one of the 10 who withdrew their support, said he had come to disagree with the principle regarding a monk's number of years in mookhood. He said elderly monks may be unable to perform their duties fully due to their old age.

NLA speaker Meechai Ruchuphan said the bill contained various worrying issues and that people outside the monastic order who may lack knowledge of its workings must beware of causing it damage.

Phaisal said later that a group of monks who had voiced their opposition to his bill were simply afraid that a senior monk they supported might not be considered a candidate to succeed His Holiness the Supreme Patrirach in the future.

Responding to criticism that his bill would further widen division among Thai monks, Phaisal said the bill was not designed to favour monks from either the Maha Nikaya or the Theravada orders.

"I only want the years-in-monkhood condition to be a standard criteria in selecting the right candidate to lead the panel in accordance with the ancient rules ordered by Lord Buddha and apart from another long-standing tradition that only a king can appoint a supreme patriarch," he said.