Election observer finds list of elected senators 'very disappointing'

By The Nation

The 73 newly appointed senators came under severe criticism yesterday with Somchai Srisuthiyakorn, secretary-general of Poll Watch, saying he was "very disappointed". However, other public figures like former prime minister Banharn Silpa-archa urged people to not judge the senators hastily and instead observe their performance first.

Somchai said 90 per cent of the selected senators were linked to politics and that the selection system, which was introduced under the junta-sponsored charter of 2007 that gave seven individuals the final say, needed to be revamped in order to encourage political participation.

The election observer said only 10 to 15 per cent of the appointed senators had demonstrated that they had the credentials and political impartiality for the job. The rest, he said, were linked to one of the two sides in politics, with most of them leaning toward the current Abhisit Vejjajiva administration.

Somchai predicted smooth relations with the upper house if the Democrats returned to power after the election, but he said the appointed senators along with the elected ones who have a clear political base could not offer society the kind of credibility it needs.

He also insisted that the seven individuals who did the selecting, could have come under the influence of lobbyists and suggested that people have a greater say in the selection process or that the candidates' vision be made public.

Baharn, meanwhile, speaking as chief of advisor to Chart Thai Pattana Party said he was disappointed by some of the names selected because he knew that they had bad records, though he defended the selection committee, which he said was working under pressure.

Overall, he said, the selections were good and at that he did not think all senators should be elected in order to prevent the upper house from having just two political colours.

As for rumours that General Theeradej Meepien, former permanent secretary of the Defence Ministry, would be made president of the upper house, Banharn said he believed the general was a good man.

As for General Somjet Boonthanom, former secretary of the Council for National Security (CNS), being appointed as senator, Banharn advised the public to monitor his work first.

"The upper house doesn't pay attention to past histories but it has the duty of scrutinising the government and the lower house," Chumpol Silpa-archa, Banharn's younger brother and key member of the Chart Thai Pattana Party, said.

Chumpol added that he personally preferred it if all the senators were elected because appointed senators tended to serve those who supported them, while elected ones served the voters. He added that elected senators had previously proved that they could be more effective, given that they were under no political influence. He also said that they should elect somebody who can be impartial and good as a president.

Meanwhile, in reaction to claims that people close to the CNS were appointed as senators, Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban said no preference had been given to those who were close to the council. He also denied that any appointed senators were working for the ruling Democrat Party and downplayed criticism that these senators had been appointed to stand in opposition against former PM Thaksin Shinawatra. He also declined to offer any appraisals of the appointed individuals.

-- The Nation 2011-04-14

Lots of retired police generals on the list.

I suspect that the article got its title wrong, and it is the Selected senators who are same-old same-old, and not the Elected senators who disappoint.

Let's face it, any list of Thai ex-politicians and ex-military, could hardly be anything other-than "very disappointing".

Edited April 14, 201115 yr by Ricardo

Disappointing to WHO. The political establishment must love the list

Banharn Silpa-archa urged people to not judge the senators hastily

Mr. ATM giving out advice instead of bribe money. Makes a change.

biggest problem with the Senate is they pretend that it is above politics. It isn't.

Heads will go into the sand nonetheless.

This is a clear sign of coming events.

If the person who is responsible for controlling the regularity, ventured an opinion on the quality of candidates for political position then it clearly shows doubt on its impartiality, which is imperative to perform these function.

He would have no right to comment on anything related to elections.

It becomes very clear that these elections will be remembered.