Charter Amendment would see power shift, not Thai Senate reform

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Amendment would see power shift, not Senate reform
Attayuth Bootsripoom

Parliament this week is deliberating a constitutional amendment that would require all senators to be elected.

BANGKOK: -- The opposition has strongly opposed the proposed amendment and plans to bring this matter to the Constitutional Court if the amendment bill manages to pass Parliament.

Under the current Constitution of 2007, there are 150 senators. Of these, 77 are elected (one from each province) and the remainder are appointed by a selection committee consisting of independent organisation heads.

The amendment bill seeks to cancel appointment of senators, who are viewed by many as representing the "old power regime", and have 200 senators elected from throughout the country, with the number from each province based on the size of the population.

The proposed change would lift a ban in the current charter that prohibits close family members of incumbent MPs and political officeholders - such as parents, spouses and children - from contesting for a senatorial post. This ban was added into the post-coup Constitution after the previous Parliament was so dominated by senators and MPs with close family ties that it was called the "Parliament of spouses".

The bill to amend the Constitution also seeks to lift a ban on former MPs, former political party members, and former officeholders in local administrative organisations who have been out of their previous posts for less than five years, from contesting for senatorial seats.

That means that if this amendment becomes law, MPs, public officeholders and political party members can apply to contest for senatorial seats immediately. This amendment would come in time for a new senatorial election expected in March next year.

The amendment would satisfy not only elected senators but also appointed ones. The elected senators would be able to contest the next election, without having to wait for a term of six years, as has been required in the current charter. The appointed senators would be allowed to remain in office until their term ends.

The main duties for senators under the current Constitution are not only to scrutinise laws but also to examine candidates for independent organisations, as well as to impeach political office holders. Appointed senators, thanks to their experience, integrity and other qualities, can do a good job in performing those duties.

To have all senators elected, we will get a Senate that is no different from a House of Representatives. Also, lifting of the ban against family members of political office holders will allow people close to politicians in power to run for seats in the Senate, which is supposed to be free from political influence.

It appears the proposed amendment is mainly aimed at shifting the power to another group of people. The amendment is unlikely to address the perceived problems of the current Senate, such as too much power.

In order to reduce the power of the Senate, an amendment may be made so that the Upper House cannot both appoint and impeach members of independent agencies. When its power is limited, there is no need to amend the clauses to require that all senators are elected.

To give more legitimacy to appointed senators, an amendment may be made to require that the selection committee has members other than those from independent agencies. There may be representatives from civil society or political parties, as well as experts.

In an extreme alternative, if the Senate is viewed as unnecessary, as its members are no different from those of the House of Representatives, having no Upper House may be a model for allocation of power.

Clauses in the current charter relating to senators are an attempt to rectify flaws in the previous constitution of 1997. To revive those problems in the amendment is not a good way to tackle the perceived problems in the current charter. This amendment is unlikely to bring any improvement; it reflects only a hidden agenda.


-- The Nation 2013-08-22

[Ricardo]

How about reducing the number of senators to 100, rather than increasing from 150 to 200, which would immediately cut the cost to the public-purse of the Senate ?

It would also reduce, but not entirely eliminate, the influence of appointed senators, by reducing them to 23 out of 100.

A compromise solution ... it might even be phased-in gradually, rather than made in one fell swoop !

But it would reduce the number of jobs-for-the-boys ... which is why it won't happen.

Or perhaps move all MPs aged over-60 to the senate, thus reducing the power of the political-dinosaurs at-a-stroke, without any loss-of-face ?

Edited August 22, 2013 by Ricardo

[Nooky2]

Part of the Thaskin master plan to return to power. There are several elimination of bans that I suspect will open the door for some targeted individuals.

The election of all senators sounds like a good idea. Any appointment in this country is a bad idea. Yes a power shift but how is it not reform?

Edited August 22, 2013 by Nooky2

[Siripon]

Part of the Thaskin master plan to return to power. There are several elimination of bans that I suspect will open the door for some targeted individuals.

The election of all senators sounds like a good idea. Any appointment in this country is a bad idea. Yes a power shift but how is it not reform?

The Democrats are not against election of senators but it does have pitfalls:

Anyone connected to a political party has huge advantages- financial backing for canvassers, posters, plus well known faces supporting them. It's much harder for the unknown man to get recognized by the electorate or the all important canvassers.

So in many instances the sitting MP will propose a relative as a candidate, at present close relatives are banned, Pheua Thai want to 'reform' this.

At present the senator can only enjoy one tenure, this must be followed by a 6 year break, this will be 'reformed' by Pheua Thai so the senator can sit indefinitely.

The senators are important, they help choose the members of the anti-corruption agencies. Now if the senator is a friend or family member of an MP, it's extremely likely he's going to select a candidate for the independent agencies who's friendly to his party. Win win for his party and corruption, lose lose for the public.

[MrSlatersParrot]

This phrase jumps out from the Op-ed:

"Appointed senators, thanks to their experience, integrity and other qualities, can do a good job in performing those duties".

It should be a doddle then for them to get elected at the end of their term if they are doing such a fine job.

[rubl]

This phrase jumps out from the Op-ed:

"Appointed senators, thanks to their experience, integrity and other qualities, can do a good job in performing those duties".

It should be a doddle then for them to get elected at the end of their term if they are doing such a fine job.

Even appointed senators must wait six years from the end of their term before they can stand. A bit of a bother, really needs to be changed, really

EDIT: add more detail

Edited August 22, 2013 by rubl

[dickyknee]

This phrase jumps out from the Op-ed:

"Appointed senators, thanks to their experience, integrity and other qualities, can do a good job in performing those duties".

It should be a doddle then for them to get elected at the end of their term if they are doing such a fine job.

when was the last time / who was the last person with experience and integrity that got voted into office in this country?

[bigbamboo]

Personally I see no argument against the election of senators but then I am English and our equivalent, the House of Lords, is also an unelected upper house.

Maybe go with the American model and have two senators from each province, say two years apart but independently of national elections.

[MrSlatersParrot]

Personally I see no argument against the election of senators but then I am English and our equivalent, the House of Lords, is also an unelected upper house.

Maybe go with the American model and have two senators from each province, say two years apart but independently of national elections.

Er yes I get your point. Never really reformed. Blair balked.

Are these apponted senators landed gentry?

What's the point?

You see that these "appointed senators" were foisted on the thai electorate after the coup.

They vote as a block.

Ergo elections.