Academics Ask: Do We Really Need A Senate?: Thai Analysis

[webfact]

Academics ask: do we really need a Senate?
Attayuth Bootsripoom
Khanittha Thepphajorn
The Nation


National Institute Development Administration (NIDA) rector Sombat Thamrongthanyawong

BANGKOK: -- The ruling coalition parties' attempts to rewrite the charter - to remove appointed senators and restrictions against parents, spouses and children of MPs to qualify as senators - have met with strong criticism.

Opponents say the changes would result in the Senate becoming not only just a rubber stamp, but also a sword that politicians could use against their political opponents.

The main reason for the proposed changes cited by the government camp is that appointed senators have no link with the people - while they do have powerful roles in impeaching, disqualifying, endorsing political officer-holders and members of independent agencies.



Besides, independent agencies (which are officially endorsed by the Senate) have a role in appointing senators. The result is conflict of interest and can lead to nepotism or a spoiled system.

Government critics however have argued that if all appointed senators were removed and only elected senators were permitted, a political party which has control over the country's election would have a mandate over both the upper and lower houses - dangerous because the checks-and-balances system could not function. Politicians in power are thus allowed to exercise this power in excess to protect themselves and to sabotage their political opponents.

The move to abolish restrictions against spouses, parents and children from applying as senators followed the vetting of the charter by the joint House committee. Critics said the move raised concern that the so called "husband-wife Parliament" would return, referring to both spouses either serving as MPs or senators, which happened when the 1997 charter was enforced.

Critics pointed out if senators were given such a powerful role, strict screening of their qualifications would be needed in order that the checks-and-balances system worked, otherwise there was no need to have an upper House.

However, it appears the "people who call the shots" believe they can still use senators to their advantage and they only want to remove appointed senators and maintain elected ones - while reducing restrictions on senators' qualifications. This has made critics believe the people in charge want to put the Senate under their thumb as happened when the 1997 constitution, which was designed for such a political format, was enforced.

If this is the case, observers believe there would be no need to have the Senate. But is it possible to have only a single house?

National Institute Development Administration (NIDA) rector Sombat Thamrongthanyawong said either a double or single house legislature is possible. Thailand has Lower and Upper Houses because lawmakers want the upper house to provide legal support in terms of helping the lower house screen or check laws.

Sombat however believes MPs nowadays are competent and knowledgeable and do not need to have senators screening legislation. Having senators going through each law to check them only delays the legislation process. In addition, the Senate has not been able to remove any politicians or officials, although the body has been given such a powerful right to do so.

"The political scenario of the Senate fully backing the government could come back to haunt us again without doubt. That the consequences could be worse than when the 1997 charter was enforced, or not, remains to be seen," he said.

Chaiyan Chaiporn, lecturer at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Political Science said if the so-called "husband-wife House" was returned, having the Senate would be meaningless. "Useless. If you wished for electors not to vote for the network or allies of politicians in the Senate, you'd have to wait very long before voters developed such a conscience. The best solution would be to amend the charter to reduce the senators' roles," he said.

Trakul Meechai, lecturer at Chulalongkorn University agreed with the two academics, saying if there were only elected senators, senators would not be free from political influence and the checks-and-balances system could be tampered with.

"Political parties would field their A list group as MP candidates and B list as senatorial candidates," he said.

Pornsan Liangbunchai, lecturer at the same university said the discussion had to start with what roles senators should have. "If they want only elected senators, the roles have to redefined. If senators' roles are the same as those of MPs, then there would be no need to have the Senate," he said.


-- The Nation 2013-05-27

[MaxLee]

Does it really matter? Feudal family clans and their offspring always get the big cut in anything related to corruption...

[Bellweather]

Of course it's needed, Thailand the hub of Jobs For The Boys !

[A Member]

I would miss some of the sage comments that come from members of this august body like the one who wanted a court order banning Mr. T from using Skype. Apart from anything else he clearly didn't understand that only government critics get banned.

[OzMick]

With Thaksin making all the decisions from Dubai, do we really need a parliament?

[JetsetBkk]

Nepotism rules.

[Robby nz]

Sombat however believes MPs nowadays are competent and knowledgeable

When I got to that bit I had to laugh

Changing the Senate is only another step in removing the checks and balances that prevent the above "competent and knowledgeable MP's" from doing whatever they like for themselves rather than the country.

If they get away with changing the rules for the Senate what comes next, the rules for the lower house?

[rubl]

"Sombat however believes MPs nowadays are competent and knowledgeable and do not need to have senators screening legislation."

PM Yingluck selected her cabinet on 'knowledge', 'potential', 'capabilities' and 'suitability'. Nice, but also three reshuffles since August 2011 and lots and lots of new people in the cabinet. As most were MP's one may be excused to wonder about things. On the other hand Thai pigs can fly.

[khunken]

If the senate becomes an extension of parliament - like it did under the 1997 constitution - it is a pointless body. This is of course what PTP wants - wives, husbands, children, mia nois & Thaksin sycophants to be involved in selecting members of independent bodies & no real vetting of parliament.

Unless a method is found that allows the possibility of non-party or independent-minded people to be elected, the country is better off with a mix of appointed & elected members - similar to the current make-up.

[amore]

Sombat however believes MPs nowadays are competent and knowledgeable

When I got to that bit I had to laugh

Changing the Senate is only another step in removing the checks and balances that prevent the above "competent and knowledgeable MP's" from doing whatever they like for themselves rather than the country.

If they get away with changing the rules for the Senate what comes next, the rules for the lower house?

During the lifetime of this government the Constitutional Court has been the one who supposedly have been providing "checks and balances" according to their interpretation of the constitution that is. Looking at what they have achieved so far the last thing you need is the Senate poking it's oar in. The appointed Senators (last appointed under the Military Junta) are appointed by a Senate Selection Committee chosen by Judges who in turn are appointed following the advice of the Senate. Cosy arrangement, I feel.

Edited May 27, 2013 by amore

[rubl]

In the 2007 constitution we have the 74 appointed, 76 elected senate, but also some additional qualification requirements and other criteria. JUst read

1997 constitution section 107, 109, 125 and 126
2007 constitution section 102, 115

Of course 2007-115(5) not being ascendants, spouse or child of a member of the House of Representatives or a person holding a political position; is a bit undemocratic, but a correct reflection of Thai circumstances where 'family first' would put doubt on 'country first'.

[khunken]

Sombat however believes MPs nowadays are competent and knowledgeable

When I got to that bit I had to laugh

Changing the Senate is only another step in removing the checks and balances that prevent the above "competent and knowledgeable MP's" from doing whatever they like for themselves rather than the country.

If they get away with changing the rules for the Senate what comes next, the rules for the lower house?

During the lifetime of this government the Constitutional Court has been the one who supposedly have been providing "checks and balances" according to their interpretation of the constitution that is. Looking at what they have achieved so far the last thing you need is the Senate poking it's oar in. The appointed Senators (last appointed under the Military Junta) are appointed by a Senate Selection Committee chosen by Judges who in turn are appointed following the advice of the Senate. Cosy arrangement, I feel.

Yes it's not perfect. But at least PTP party members didn't get involved and remove any last vestige of independence.

Apart from 'we are elected & so can do what we want' sort of 'thought' from the government, where is the real effort to protect or even enhance the checks & balances that are supposed to be part of Thailand's democracy?

[amore]

If the senate becomes an extension of parliament - like it did under the 1997 constitution - it is a pointless body. This is of course what PTP wants - wives, husbands, children, mia nois & Thaksin sycophants to be involved in selecting members of independent bodies & no real vetting of parliament.

Unless a method is found that allows the possibility of non-party or independent-minded people to be elected, the country is better off with a mix of appointed & elected members - similar to the current make-up.

The Senate as an Upper House which presumably you are referring to as an "extension of parliament" was first brought about by in the 1946 Constitution, not 1997. That Senate was to be fully elected by the MP's. However the 1947 coup, or as we are supposed to call it nowadays, "military intervention" come up with another constitution (sound familiar) which left the Senate full of the military and elite appointees.

The next time the fully elected Senate came about was under the 1997 Constitution. Lo and Behold along comes another "military intervention" the constitution is rewritten again and now the Senate is half full of military and elite appointees, so hardly an extension of parliament.

How you can think that country is better off with a redundant senate half full of elected and half appointed senators is beyond me.

[khunken]

If the senate becomes an extension of parliament - like it did under the 1997 constitution - it is a pointless body. This is of course what PTP wants - wives, husbands, children, mia nois & Thaksin sycophants to be involved in selecting members of independent bodies & no real vetting of parliament.

Unless a method is found that allows the possibility of non-party or independent-minded people to be elected, the country is better off with a mix of appointed & elected members - similar to the current make-up.

The Senate as an Upper House which presumably you are referring to as an "extension of parliament" was first brought about by in the 1946 Constitution, not 1997. That Senate was to be fully elected by the MP's. However the 1947 coup, or as we are supposed to call it nowadays, "military intervention" come up with another constitution (sound familiar) which left the Senate full of the military and elite appointees.

The next time the fully elected Senate came about was under the 1997 Constitution. Lo and Behold along comes another "military intervention" the constitution is rewritten again and now the Senate is half full of military and elite appointees, so hardly an extension of parliament.

How you can think that country is better off with a redundant senate half full of elected and half appointed senators is beyond me.

No, I was referring to the 'elected' senate that came about as a result of the 1997 constitution. It was a complete facade as it was dominated by wives etc as already pointed out & you ignore it's reality.

I've stated why the current arrangement is a lot better than that & in no sense have I said it is redundant. You have avoided making suggestions that might allow for an independent senate.

When PTP come up with a better solution that is not just to maintain their grip on power, I'll be happy to consider it. Plus the Thai people will have to get an opportunity to vote on whatever the PTP decision on various versions floating around is.

[rubl]

It's too easy nowadays with lots of speeches documented for posterity. Like the speech 'from' PM Yingluck in Mongolia.

"But the story is not over. It is clear that elements of anti-democratic regime still exist. The new constitution, drafted under the coup leaders led government, put in mechanisms to restrict democracy.
A good example of this is that half of the Thai Senate is elected, but the other half is appointed by a small group of people."

So, almost 90% of the 2007 constitution is a near letter perfect copy of the 1997 version, and apart from the 74/76 setup with ALL potential senators having to fulfill the same requirements, most feel that the 2007-115(5) section is the most restrictive and undemocratic as it hinders that family full of geniusses, the Shinawatra clan. Mind you as said before with 'family first' a concept fully understood by Thai, I'd rather have senators who can think of 'country first'. IMHO.

[waza]

Do we need a senate? Do we need a constitutional court? Do we need judicial review? Do we actually need an elected government?

Not when we have a benevolent dictator like the criminal Thaksin to look after the welfare of all Thais.

[hellodolly]

If the senate becomes an extension of parliament - like it did under the 1997 constitution - it is a pointless body. This is of course what PTP wants - wives, husbands, children, mia nois & Thaksin sycophants to be involved in selecting members of independent bodies & no real vetting of parliament.

Unless a method is found that allows the possibility of non-party or independent-minded people to be elected, the country is better off with a mix of appointed & elected members - similar to the current make-up.

The Senate as an Upper House which presumably you are referring to as an "extension of parliament" was first brought about by in the 1946 Constitution, not 1997. That Senate was to be fully elected by the MP's. However the 1947 coup, or as we are supposed to call it nowadays, "military intervention" come up with another constitution (sound familiar) which left the Senate full of the military and elite appointees.

The next time the fully elected Senate came about was under the 1997 Constitution. Lo and Behold along comes another "military intervention" the constitution is rewritten again and now the Senate is half full of military and elite appointees, so hardly an extension of parliament.

How you can think that country is better off with a redundant senate half full of elected and half appointed senators is beyond me.

No, I was referring to the 'elected' senate that came about as a result of the 1997 constitution. It was a complete facade as it was dominated by wives etc as already pointed out & you ignore it's reality.

I've stated why the current arrangement is a lot better than that & in no sense have I said it is redundant. You have avoided making suggestions that might allow for an independent senate.

When PTP come up with a better solution that is not just to maintain their grip on power, I'll be happy to consider it. Plus the Thai people will have to get an opportunity to vote on whatever the PTP decision on various versions floating around is.

The PT can not put to many things out to be voted on by the people.

Thaksin can not afford it.

[hellodolly]

I really liked this line

"The main reason for the proposed changes cited by the government camp is that appointed senators have no link with the people"

Like the people in the cabinet or Parliament do.

[whybother]

Sombat however believes MPs nowadays are competent and knowledgeable

 

When I got to that bit I had to laugh

 

Changing the Senate is only another step in removing the checks and balances that prevent the above "competent and knowledgeable MP's" from doing whatever they like for themselves rather than the country.

 

If they get away with changing the rules for the Senate what comes next, the rules for the lower house?

 

During the lifetime of this government the Constitutional Court has been the one who supposedly have been providing "checks and balances" according to their interpretation of the constitution that is. Looking at what they have achieved so far the last thing you need is the Senate poking it's oar in. The appointed Senators (last appointed under the Military Junta) are appointed by a Senate Selection Committee chosen by Judges who in turn are appointed following the advice of the Senate. Cosy arrangement, I feel.

The first lot of appointed senators after the coup were appointed in 2008, and were appointed for only 3 years. So the next lot were appointed in 2011.

So none of them were appointed under the military junta.

Sent from my shoe phone.

[hellodolly]

The headline should actually read Senator asks do we need Academics?

They say and I quote

"MPs nowadays are competent and knowledgeable"

So once again I say do we need Academics?

When I took a few quarters in collage one of the teachers said they had Professors in the same fields running around the same university who could not even agree on the time of day using the same watch.

Edited May 28, 2013 by hellodolly