Proposal for Senate condemned

[Lite Beer]

CHARTER WRITING
Proposal for Senate condemned
KRIS BHROMSUTHI
THE NATION

Borwornsak Uwanno, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, delivers a speech to representatives from all ministries at the Parliament yesterday. The topic was on giving officials the opportunity to express views and ideas for the new charter.

BANGKOK: -- Politicians say unelected upper House will be anti-democratic; charter drafters say Houses need to be distinct

The charter drafters' highly publicised proposal to grant "super power" to a fully appointed Senate, which also gives senators the power to scrutinise ministerial candidates, will be a wrong step in Thailand's move toward democracy, former MPs Nipit Intarasombat and Udomdet Rattanasatien said.

Earlier this week, the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) proposed that the unelected Senate be given the power to propose laws and scrutinise the qualifications of ministerial candidates. This is in addition to their existing authority under the 2007 Constitution to impeach the prime minister, ministers and top officials.

"This power allocation is not correct and it will not solve problems," Democrat Nipit said.

He said the proposal showed the CDC deep mistrust of politicians and their move to control them through bureaucrats, but feared it would only result in a stalemate between the two Houses and between executives and high-ranking ministry officials.

"This will also give rise to serious administrative problems, and if this happens, the country will go nowhere. The proposal to increase the power of the appointed Senate will be a step backward in Thailand's democratic progress," the former Democrat MP said.

Pheu Thai's Udomdet said the proposal was anti-democratic and expressed concern that it would make conflicts worse and deepen the social division.

"This shows that the charter drafters don't have confidence in the public's decision and also reflects the notion that appointing government officials is better than electing them," he said, adding that this was a clear example of social injustice and double-standards that make certain groups more privileged than others.

"People have feelings, and they may not be able to express themselves at the moment," he said, adding that this would only contribute to the class struggle and not allow equal political participation.

"Everybody in the country is equal, so why should certain groups be given special, strange ways of getting into power?" he asked, adding that there is just one social group - the citizens of Thailand.

Udomdet said: "Democracy is the best system because it doesn't exclude anybody and anyone who wants to run in an election can do so. I believe that's the best way forward."

Scope of power questioned

Satithorn Thananithichote, a researcher from King Prajadhipok’s Institute, also disagreed with the scope of power that will be granted to appointed senators. He said senators lacked the democratic legitimacy to have the kind of power that allows them to scrutinise ministerial candidates or propose bills.

"How can people's representatives have less power than appointed members of parliament?" he asked, saying it was a "radical proposal" that would only lead to future conflict between members of the two Houses.

Satithorn said charter drafters seemed to accept the fact that social inequality still exists and that there is a class struggle, in which a small group holds most of the power in society.

As a result, he said, it is understandable that the CDC is trying to give different social groups official standing in the country's political arena so they can compromise and negotiate for their interests.

"When it comes to the origin of senators, I have no objections because it solves the problem of duplication in both Houses. This proposal will provide more variety in terms of the background of parliament representatives," he said.

On Thursday, CDC came to a consensus on Senate membership and decided that there would be a maximum of 200 senators appointed from five social groups.

The first would be former chiefs of executive, legislative and judicial branches; the second group former senior government officials such as permanent secretaries of ministries and military commanders; while the third would be chiefs of professional organisations. The fourth group would include representatives of registered civil groups such as labour unions and agriculture cooperatives; while the final group would comprise members selected from professional groups that have had public endorsement.

CDC spokesman Kamnoon Sitthisamarn said charter drafters want two parliaments that are distinct from one another, hence the House of Representatives would consist of people's representatives while the Senate would be appointed from different social groups. He said this would allow for more "variety" and a "more inclusive" representation in Parliament.

Charter drafters want "power groups" in society to have official standings in our political system, Kamnoon explained.

Acknowledging that the proposal had been criticised for being anti-democratic, he said "it depends on different viewpoints, but direct elections may not always be a step forward in democracy, but inclusive participation from all social groups definitely is".

He said appointed senators would help resolve parliamentary problems that the country experienced before.

"In the past, the direct election of members of both Houses showed that they came from the same group. So what's the point in having two Houses?"

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Proposal-for-Senate-condemned-30250777.html

-- The Nation 2014-12-27

[Tatsujin]

Whenever I see/hear statements like this, I always check the political allegiances of those who condemn/oppose or shout loudest. It's very telling.

[Emster23]

Proposal to have senate all appointed making the real decisions reminds me of "student government" in 3rd grade. "Let's pretend it is democracy". One reason coup happened was audacious proposal that ALL senate seats be elected. Can't have that!

[Eric Loh]

Came at no suprise that the junta appointed drafters will try to armed the appointed upper house to subjugate the lower house and continue to deny the people freedom to elect and allowing the old power establishment clique to stay in power.

[oneday]

An unelected senate is 100% undemocratic. Giving them greater powers is so far away from Democracy it's a total farce. Somebody better get their head on straight or this country will go right down the tube.

[rickirs]

"there is just one social group - the citizens of Thailand."

EXACTLY. "We the People" comes to mind with this statement. It is not We the:

- Military

-Law Enforcement

-Elitists

-Wealthy

-Poor

-Royalists

-Party Members

-Civil Servants

While the Junta maintains that it is politically nuetral - it is not. A 100% elected Senate would mean the military will lose one of its veils of power over an elected civilian government. The NCPO couldn't even bear a 50% elected Senate and eliminated it completely with its formation of the unelected National Legislative Assembly. If a fully elected Senate becomes the final recommendation from the NRC/CDC, I expect the NCPO will "order" (ie., under Article 44) for the formation of an outside super agency that can "legally" override the whole of parliament. That agency would be "aligned" with the military/royalist societies. And so the division of the Thai society continues.

[ThaiUser]

Having spent over 20 years in Europe most of the time in the UK, I know that an appointed second chamber (some members even there by birthright) isn’t the way forward. In the UK the discussion revolves around the issue of abolishing the House of Lords (in our case the Senate) and to replace it with a chamber that is elected by the true sovereign within a country – the people.

Anybody that says that an appointed second chamber with more powers as the elected chamber (parliament) is part of a democratic process should go back to school and learn what democracy stands for. The people that would appoint the senators place themselves above the rest of the country, proclaiming that they know best which only leads into political systems that have failed in the past.

Why have elections at all if the second chamber would have the right to impeach an elected PM and the government?

[WitawatWatawit]

When you look at the five groups that are proposed to do the appointing, you realise that feudalism is still very much alive in this country. The proposal is fatuous and farcical.

[whybother]

When you look at the five groups that are proposed to do the appointing, you realise that feudalism is still very much alive in this country. The proposal is fatuous and farcical.

It isn't the "5 groups" that are doing the "appointing".

The senators will be "indirectly elected FROM 5 groups".

I haven't seen who will be doing the "electing" yet.

[longway]

"How can people's representatives have less power than appointed members of parliament?" he asked, saying it was a "radical proposal" that would only lead to future conflict between members of the two Houses.

Calling MPs of any country 'peoples' representatives', let alone Thailand, irritates me no end. There is no way people can be guaranteed to be represented unless their consent is obtained, the electoral process doesn't allow voters' consent to be part of the process, it is carefully excluded and the system run pretty much everywhere is 'Lead, follow or get out of the way'. And is undemocratic to its core no matter how much you fiddle with it.

Unless this is fixed there is very little hope of 'democracy' ever being part of Thailand's political fabric. Elected parties don't represent voters, they rule them and represent the interests of people or entities of influence in political parties, many of these 'persons of influence' are unelected anyway.

The fact that Thailand is balancing the power of elected elites with unelected elites is not necessarily undemocratic, if both are at each others throats it leaves political space for ordinary people to influence governance in their own interests; this is democracy.

Putting all power is the hands of elected elites is not democracy and can be just the opposite.

[rakman]

Since there are 77 provinces in Thailand, I suggest 2 Senators selected (and voted on) by the elected provincial government from each province. Tie breaker for Senate votes is the PM. The House of Representatives to be elected by direct elections of the people of each province, in whatever numbers required.

The rational is the House is the direct representatives of the people to the Federal Government. The Senate is the representative of the provinces to the Federal Government. This mix of power and responsibility provides a balance of the needs of the province and people, and ultimately the people have also decided on their provincial government legislators that select and vote approval of the Senators. Senators get 6 year terms, House gets 2 year terms.

It would be nice to limit elected officials to 2 terms for the Senate and 4 terms for the House, which applies for life.

Just my .02

[smedly]

Whenever I see/hear statements like this, I always check the political allegiances of those who condemn/oppose or shout loudest. It's very telling.

yes it's very obvious who would be the strongest opposition to this, I happen to like the idea that MP's will be constantly under scrutiny while in office, the problem is that there must be a clear voting system within the senate to make sure that they don't become the abusers, checks and balances just got a big stick

[djjamie]

Proposal to have senate all appointed making the real decisions reminds me of "student government" in 3rd grade. "Let's pretend it is democracy". One reason coup happened was audacious proposal that ALL senate seats be elected. Can't have that!

Proposal to have senate all appointed making the real decisions reminds me of "student government" in 3rd grade.

Reminds me of the Canadian senate. Canada is a democracy.

[pisico]

There are centuries of feudalistic institutions ingrained in the people's DNA versus the short and occasional stints of Democracy in Thailand.

Began in the 20th. Century. Bear in mind that slavery was "formally" abolished in Thailand in 1912 .

If the current PM is self appointed, what is wrong with appointed head Kanman, senators and others in government? TIT

[djjamie]

The people appointed to the Senate were not professional politicians. They were small business people, senior managers in big business, heads of NGOs or professionals with real-world experience. They were the kind of people who wanted to make a difference and contribute to Thailand, without subjecting themselves to the contact sport of elected politics. How do you attract such people to public life without making them run for office? Appoint them.

​It has already been proven that criminals were elected to the senate while professionals were appointed. That argument alone defends the poll that suggested the majority of Thai's had no idea what a senators job entails. Most Australians don't either so no surprises there. Someone even rebutted this argument and said an American governor was arrested on corruption charges. This is an illogical comparison and in fact inadvertently defends my argument for an appointed senate. How many Americans would have voted for him knowing he was corrupt? None. Why? Americans have a standard of education that allows them to make an informed decision about who they will vote for. The governor did not offer the voters rice at over 40% above market value either. Now even though the Americans would not have voted for him if they knew he was corrupt imagine if they knew he was affiliated with a terrorist group or smuggled her husband across the border as did the Chiang Mai and Udon senators that were voted in. Imagine that.

An appointed senate is not required for America. It won't work. It would be undemocratic because education and democracy is highly correlated. Americans would not vote criminals into the senate. For Thailand it would be undemocratic to not have one.

Democracy is a tool and like a gun in the wrong hands can work for the good of the people or can be used against them. People have done some pretty bad things in the name of democracy and they have done wonderful things as well. A gun in the hands of a person that is not educated in how to use it could potentially kill them with the recoil. I have seen a young girl at a range with an uzi blow off her dads head because she was not educated in its use (on liveleaks) . If you educate someone on a guns use it is a lot safer. If you educate a voter base on democracy then the senate will be a lot safer. Democracy and education are highly correlated.

So it is wonderful to elect a party to represent the country and by all means let them be criminals while the education of the country catches up, but there is no way that those criminals can go unaccountable for so long as they did last time and the time before and the time before and the time before and the time before.

So unless people love coups then an appointed senate is the way forward. Unless people want terrorists to kill with impunity from the elected government then this is the way forward. I don't want to see Thailand blow its head off again.

​I bet there are 28 peoples families that would have loved the senate to remove the PTP before their family members died. With that said there are probably 200 terrorists that committed the daily terrorist attacks that are very happy the senate didn't remove the PTP.

Edited December 27, 2014 by djjamie

[greenchair]

When you look at the five groups that are proposed to do the appointing, you realise that feudalism is still very much alive in this country. The proposal is fatuous and farcical.

It isn't the "5 groups" that are doing the "appointing".

The senators will be "indirectly elected FROM 5 groups".

I haven't seen who will be doing the "electing" yet.

Not quite understand this.

The 5 groups are not appointing.

The Senate will be indirectly appointed by the 5 groups.

You don't know who will be doing the electing. ?

[Thai at Heart]

An unelected senate is 100% undemocratic. Giving them greater powers is so far away from Democracy it's a total farce. Somebody better get their head on straight or this country will go right down the tube.

More than who they are and how they are appointed is the powers vested in them. Giving them the power to veto appointments and remove appointments is non sensical whether they are elected or not.

The upper house should provide guidance and a check on the lower. Not a stick and not the right to veto the lower.

[candide]

When you look at the five groups that are proposed to do the appointing, you realise that feudalism is still very much alive in this country. The proposal is fatuous and farcical.

It isn't the "5 groups" that are doing the "appointing".

The senators will be "indirectly elected FROM 5 groups".

I haven't seen who will be doing the "electing" yet.

Not quite understand this.

The 5 groups are not appointing.

The Senate will be indirectly appointed by the 5 groups.

You don't know who will be doing the electing. ?

So a key question is who will appoint senators? Let me guess:

- a committee composed of representatives of the army and so called independent organisations (court, nacc...)

- and in turn senators will approve nomination of members of these independent organisations.

It's only my guess...

[khunken]

Well it's pretty obvious to most that the experiment of a fully elected senate didn't work here. It just became an extension of Parliament which defeated the purpose of having a 2nd chamber.

I think that the proposal for electing senators by a different electorate is a sound one. It actually mirrors how the senate is elected in my home country - Ireland.

However I do think that it should not include military commanders in the electorate, nor should it include any position appointed by the government.

[greenchair]

Thailand must make a decision.

Full democracy with all it's flaws. Where change is slow and painful, but can withstand the test of time.

Or

Military rule with all its flaws.

Where change is clear,fast, binding ,and dominated by a few. Rarely standing up to the test of time.

Thailand cannot have a military rule under the disguise of a democracy. 5 maybe 10 years the people will be on the streets again. There really is no perfect governmental system. Get used to it. The rest of the world did a long time ago.

[sjaak327]

At least the democrats and PT seem to agree on something, I agree as well, this idea is understandable from the junta's standpoint, not from a democracy standpoint.

Remember whybother about making elections matter less ? This is exactly what I posted about, and as such, this proposal is not a surprise. Let's hope they won't get away with it.

[Thai at Heart]

Well it's pretty obvious to most that the experiment of a fully elected senate didn't work here. It just became an extension of Parliament which defeated the purpose of having a 2nd chamber.

I think that the proposal for electing senators by a different electorate is a sound one. It actually mirrors how the senate is elected in my home country - Ireland.

However I do think that it should not include military commanders in the electorate, nor should it include any position appointed by the government.

Why they simply cannot follow the house of lords model I don't know.

An appointed upper house who have the right to hold the lower house to account and scrutiny, but cannot set or completely block legislation.

I guess that would mean they would have to do some work and do research and sit in committees producing reports and things like that. Much better just to veto and demand to be listened to.

[Thai at Heart]

Thailand must make a decision.

Full democracy with all it's flaws. Where change is slow and painful, but can withstand the test of time.

Or

Military rule with all its flaws.

Where change is clear,fast, binding ,and dominated by a few. Rarely standing up to the test of time.

Thailand cannot have a military rule under the disguise of a democracy. 5 maybe 10 years the people will be on the streets again. There really is no perfect governmental system. Get used to it. The rest of the world did a long time ago.

They can have an appointed senate but the power they have has to be limited and structured to provide a reasonable check and scrutiny of the lower house.

The pooyais have to accept that the lower house will not just jump to their will.

[tbthailand]

At least the democrats and PT seem to agree on something, I agree as well, this idea is understandable from the junta's standpoint, not from a democracy standpoint.

Remember whybother about making elections matter less ? This is exactly what I posted about, and as such, this proposal is not a surprise. Let's hope they won't get away with it.

I imagine that this is either a really big trial balloon, or that they will ram it through.

What ever they ('NCPO') choose to get away with is already pre-ordained to be approved. The interim charter says so.

[tbthailand]

it's nice to see at least one Democrat call this out for what it is.

[Robby nz]

The sentence that stood out for me in the OP is that of the ex PT MP :

Udomdet said: "Democracy is the best system because it doesn't exclude anybody and anyone who wants to run in an election can do so. I believe that's the best way forward."

This is a fallacy for at present the system does exclude many because it is the parties who decide who will be allowed to run in an election.

This makes the candidate more answerable to the party than the electorate for they first have to be selected by the party before they can face the electorate and in many cases people vote for a party and their policies rather than a candidate. I doubt there is a way to change this for it happens everywhere, but :

There needs to be checks to ensure those who parties choose as candidates come up to predetermined standards of honesty, ethics, qualifications and behavior.

This is particularly important if they are going to have a party list for as we saw with the previous administration where list places were given to those who were on bail for serious crimes and had nothing to offer the country in the way of either experience or qualifications.

At the very least those with a criminal history must be excluded, this was in the 2 previous constitutions but still some managed to slip through.

There should also be a provision for temporary exclusion of those facing charges for serious crime whether on bail or not, should they be found not guilty after a trial then they would be free to stand, if guilty then they would be excluded.

To do this there would have to be a definition of crime which would lead to exclusion, for instance speeding or not wearing a helmet as an 18yr old would not be considered for exclusion, however electoral fraud definitely would.

OK the real subject of the OP.

The senate as it was previously seemed to work with part elected and part appointed as the two balanced each other out to a certain degree.

As to their powers well it seems the proposals are actually putting some of the power of the other checks and balances agencies on to the senate which may not be a good thing as a separation of these powers would give a better balance and leave specialist organisations to deal with each different transgression or check.

[khunken]

Well it's pretty obvious to most that the experiment of a fully elected senate didn't work here. It just became an extension of Parliament which defeated the purpose of having a 2nd chamber.

I think that the proposal for electing senators by a different electorate is a sound one. It actually mirrors how the senate is elected in my home country - Ireland.

However I do think that it should not include military commanders in the electorate, nor should it include any position appointed by the government.

Why they simply cannot follow the house of lords model I don't know.

An appointed upper house who have the right to hold the lower house to account and scrutiny, but cannot set or completely block legislation.

I guess that would mean they would have to do some work and do research and sit in committees producing reports and things like that. Much better just to veto and demand to be listened to.

I assume you're being serious here. Personally the house of lords is the last model I'd use. No amount of holding to account or scrutiny would work with Thai politicians without some form of vetoing included.

For example the amnesty bill would have become law without the senate's veto. If the constitution doesn't give the senate some teeth it's a waste of time having it.

[longway]

The sentence that stood out for me in the OP is that of the ex PT MP :

Udomdet said: "Democracy is the best system because it doesn't exclude anybody and anyone who wants to run in an election can do so. I believe that's the best way forward."

This is a fallacy for at present the system does exclude many because it is the parties who decide who will be allowed to run in an election.

This makes the candidate more answerable to the party than the electorate for they first have to be selected by the party before they can face the electorate and in many cases people vote for a party and their policies rather than a candidate. I doubt there is a way to change this for it happens everywhere, but :

There needs to be checks to ensure those who parties choose as candidates come up to predetermined standards of honesty, ethics, qualifications and behavior.

This is particularly important if they are going to have a party list for as we saw with the previous administration where list places were given to those who were on bail for serious crimes and had nothing to offer the country in the way of either experience or qualifications.

At the very least those with a criminal history must be excluded, this was in the 2 previous constitutions but still some managed to slip through.

There should also be a provision for temporary exclusion of those facing charges for serious crime whether on bail or not, should they be found not guilty after a trial then they would be free to stand, if guilty then they would be excluded.

To do this there would have to be a definition of crime which would lead to exclusion, for instance speeding or not wearing a helmet as an 18yr old would not be considered for exclusion, however electoral fraud definitely would.

OK the real subject of the OP.

The senate as it was previously seemed to work with part elected and part appointed as the two balanced each other out to a certain degree.

As to their powers well it seems the proposals are actually putting some of the power of the other checks and balances agencies on to the senate which may not be a good thing as a separation of these powers would give a better balance and leave specialist organisations to deal with each different transgression or check.

Nail on the head.

Democracy is about empowering the electorate, not the politicians.

[Dah fahrang]

Surely, no similarity here?

Or, perhaps a prototype model to be closely followed by our very own brand?

Read, think, and weep.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/26/sp-egypt-pillars-of-freedom-crashing-down

[Thai at Heart]

Well it's pretty obvious to most that the experiment of a fully elected senate didn't work here. It just became an extension of Parliament which defeated the purpose of having a 2nd chamber.

I think that the proposal for electing senators by a different electorate is a sound one. It actually mirrors how the senate is elected in my home country - Ireland.

However I do think that it should not include military commanders in the electorate, nor should it include any position appointed by the government.

Why they simply cannot follow the house of lords model I don't know.

An appointed upper house who have the right to hold the lower house to account and scrutiny, but cannot set or completely block legislation.

I guess that would mean they would have to do some work and do research and sit in committees producing reports and things like that. Much better just to veto and demand to be listened to.

I assume you're being serious here. Personally the house of lords is the last model I'd use. No amount of holding to account or scrutiny would work with Thai politicians without some form of vetoing included.

For example the amnesty bill would have become law without the senate's veto. If the constitution doesn't give the senate some teeth it's a waste of time having it.

Its all a matter of where the limits of both chambers ends. The upper house cannot set the law and impose on the lower house and the lower house should not be allowed to run rough shod over the upper house and constitution.

This can be done if there was a functioning legal system.

And I have said this before, that until they reform the legal judicial system them can have whatever system theyblike. It won't stand the test because it wont punish all comers pooyai or not.