Welcome to the fray, new senators: Thai editorial

[webfact]

Welcome to the fray, new senators
The Nation

New members of upper house could have their mettle tested early on with impeachment votes

BANGKOK: -- The Senate has always been close to, if not right at, the centre of Thailand's political strife. It's no different for the current crisis, which has been featuring everything from corruption and hate propaganda to "elitist intervention" and the decades-old question of whether the "Upper House" should be made up entirely of elected members. Yesterday's election of part of the Senate took place under the highly contentious concept that a directly-elected Senate may not be a cure-all for the country's political ills.

In fact, everything about the Senate is controversial. Should senators be appointed? If so, who should appoint them? Or should all senators come from an election? If so, how can we prevent the possibility of them being co-opted by political parties, thus defeating their checks and balances mission? The debate has led to this extreme question: Are senators necessary in the first place?

Among the legal troubles hounding the Pheu Thai Party is one involving its effort to amend the Constitution so that the Senate would comprise only elected members. That effort hit a brick wall and in the process renewed the bitter debate on the role, origin and relevance of the upper chamber. And against this acrimonious political backdrop, yesterday's poll has installed some new faces.

All we can say to them is, "Welcome to the fray". And, perhaps, "We do hope you know what you will be doing." The Senate is entrusted with impeachment powers and the authority to have a big say in the selection of members of independent organisations. This is why the way the Upper House is made up is politically important. There are claims that whoever controls the Senate along with the House of Representatives is ensured a long, stable and prosperous future in politics.

That a Senate speaker has been accused by the National Anti-Corruption Commission of being part of a conspiracy to change the structure of the Senate confirms how the Upper House has been deeply embroiled in the political crisis. Late last year, the Senate seemed set to approve the controversial amnesty bill passed by the Lower House, only to make a last-minute U-turn due to massive street protests.

Yesterday's election is anything but a step toward solving Thailand's mounting political problems. The Senate's impeachment power will put it under an immediate spotlight. A decision one way or the other will have great repercussions and draw both compliments and sharp rebukes from bitterly divided Thais, not to mention international observers closing watching the country's developments.

It's not easy to ask senators to "do your job", as the polarised nation has never agreed on what they are supposed to be doing. The Senate's job description is part of the crux of the Thai crisis, to begin with. The members of the Upper House, ideally, have the responsibility to provide checks and balances, but the debate on that responsibility has been heavily dictated by political leanings.

Even the most "politically correct" tip - for the senators to think of the people's interests only - is unlikely the get the same interpretation. To one camp, serving the country's best interests equals "supporting democracy", and everyone knows what that means in the Thai political context. To the other camp, "the people's interests" does not necessary mean the interests of the party that wins a general election.

The initiation for the new senators will be fiery. But on the bright side, the Thai political crisis has given everyone plenty of opportunities to do some serious soul-searching. And the crisis certainly will give all the Senate newcomers a chance to prove their worth, whatever that represents.


-- The Nation 2014-03-31

[Robby nz]

The problem was not with :"Should all senators be elected" The Dems agreed they should.

The problem was the tacked on bits.

Friends and rellies of MP's could be senators and the 6 year term be abolished.

Those two items meant the senate could be stacked with Govt yes men and they could stay there for the rest of their lives.

Meaning the checks and balances would be removed.

That was what was unacceptable.

[SICHONSTEVE]

The problem was not with :"Should all senators be elected" The Dems agreed they should.

The problem was the tacked on bits.

Friends and rellies of MP's could be senators and the 6 year term be abolished.

Those two items meant the senate could be stacked with Govt yes men and they could stay there for the rest of their lives.

Meaning the checks and balances would be removed.

That was what was unacceptable.

.......and highly UNDEMOCRATIC and not in the interests of the country!!

[BadBouy]

Elected and limited to 2 terms, limits the time they can gather power, money, and corruption. Do what's best for the country? What politicians in any country do that or if so not for long.

[DirtFarmer]

"Among the legal troubles hounding the Pheu Thai Party is one involving its effort to amend the Constitution so that the Senate would comprise only elected members. That effort hit a brick wall and in the process renewed the bitter debate on the role, origin and relevance of the upper chamber.... "

Actually I would suggest it wanted to restore the 1997 Constitution abrogated by the Dems,,,the very Constitution Promulgated by none other than a Democrat... but agree with Robbie NZ... there was an attempt to usher in new clauses not acceptable...to most... and certainly not acceptable to a party that forgoes the effort of offering a decent manifesto and doing political outreach to use the system instead of having to resort to contracting agencies to carry out what they refuse to do...however minor their point of view was is or ever will be

I think in retrospect we can all agree that most parties that get into power attempt to modify whatever they can in order to maintain that power...hence that battle supersedes any real efforts on behalf of the voters..be it here or in America or anywhere really...it is politics... no one has the clean sword...

Anand Panyarachun Chairman of the Drafting Committee. He oversaw the drafting of what became known as the "Peoples' Constitution" of 1997.

The constitution was abrogated in 2006 after a military coup against Thaksin Shinawatra that Anand supported. The People's Constitution instituted several important reforms,^[31][32][33] including:

• Decentralisation of government, including the establishment of elected Tambol Administrative Organisations (TAOs) and Provincial Administrative Organisations (PAOs). School administrations was also decentralised, although opposition from teachers has delayed implementation of this reform (see Thaksin Shinawatra#Education policies)
• Establishment of several independent government agencies, including the Election Commission, the Office of the Auditor-General, and the National Human Rights Commission
• Stipulating that candidates for parliament must have at least a Bachelor's degree
• Mechanisms to increase political stability by favouring large parties over small ones, and hence singular governments over coalition governments

[Scamper]

The question whether to have a senate or not to have a senate really depends on whether you want a parliamentary system or not. Parliamentary systems include senates or upper houses, and they are generally not elected. Thailand's senate is just over 50 % elected. The changes Thaksin wanted would have pretty much tilted the composition of the senate towards his party. Doing that would have taken away the institution's constitutionally intended checks and balances function, and given his party essentially rubber-stamp authority. That in turn would have freed Pheu Thai to pursue as many charter changes as they liked, including the nature of the independent agencies and the appointment of judges, and that would have unquestionably cemented Pheu Thai's presence, as well as compromise the whole principle of an independent judiciary and the nature of the independent checks and balances. So any pretending regarding Thaksin's motives to change the composition of the senate as being pure can be dismissed rather out of hand. In addition to that, Pheu Thai opted to pass the bill without the necessary series of debate protocols. Just before it was passed, the speaker of the senate promised a debate - a debate that was never honoured, as a motion to hold a vote was hastily arranged instead. In the middle of the night. Unsurprisingly, the amnesty bill was also passed in parliament in the middle of the night. That is something you'll never see in parliaments, incidentally, outside of a national emergency. Once these constitutional infractions regarding the senate bill made their way to the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court found that both the content and the process was unconstitutional. That verdict may yet determine Pheu Thai's standing as a political party. It is important to note that the Constitutional Court has already ruled on this. That means its ruling is final - except from the point of view of Pheu Thai and their supporters, of course.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Scamper