Thai govt's Charter drafter clarifies 'unelected' Senate

[Srikcir]

The 2007 Constitution draft created by the previous military Junta was put to the Thai electorate in a referendum, passing by only 51%. In other words 48% of voters rejected it. Was it then no surprise that subsequent elected officials attempted to amend the constitution, albeit in conformance to the due process of law defined by that constitution?

Now Gen. Prauth has stated there will be no referendum this time. His excuse has been that the electorate has had the opportunity to drop him a note about any suggestions during the draft process. That's enough participatory democracy for him! When one is trying to create a new kind of oligarchy that keeps the masses at arm's-length from the elite, you can't be sensitive to their rights and liberties.

A grumpy man people can laugh at. A grumpy man with tanks people can only listen.

It matters not what the NCPO clones do in a draft constitution, how they define terms, how they create independent organizations, how they decide the make-up of government, the overriding element is the NCPO agenda. And that agenda IS NOT ONE FROM THE THAI PEOPLE.

As every previous coup-driven constitution has failed, so too will the 2015 Constitution fail. And the price paid by Thais will again be higher than just the lost of rights and liberties!

[jdinasia]

The senate will be elected by a select group of people, North Korea style.

Sanctions from the EU and US will surely follow!

The upper house in the UK, similar to a senate is not elected. Same in many countries

The upper house in the UK, The House of Lords, basically has no power over anything other than the ability to delay legislation - which the House of Commons can then over rule anyway. I think we're all pretty sure Thailands' unelected rabble won't be anywhere near as toothless as the UK's - so your comparison fails dismally.

Not true.

The House of Lords can introduce legislation.

Until less than 6 years ago it acted as the UK Supreme Court

The Senate here has more power. Yet less than the House of Lords just a few years ago.

I don't find it totally unreasonable.

Yes true!

Since 1911 the House of Lords has been more or less toothless.

The recent changes to the Lords' composition have not altered its powers. The Lords can reject a bill (with some exceptions) but the Commons can (with some other exceptions)reintroduce the bill and overrule the Lords. In practice, this amounts to a right to delay a bill for one year. There is also an unofficial convention that the Lords do not use this power over legislation which was promised by the Government during the previous election campaign. The Lords can also propose detailed amendments to most bills, although the Commons have a similar power to overrule them. In other words, the Lords's powers amount to the right to ask the Commons to think again. Skillful use of that power can some times extract concessions from the Government.

The Lords also have same powers as the Commons to set up investigative committees, call for witnesses, ask questions to ministers etc.

Their judicial powers as the highest court of appeal (within England) are now exercised by the Law Lords, a sub-committee of senior judges. They have some similarities to the U.S. Supreme Court, but, without a written constitution to interpret, they cannot strike down legislation.

Source?

In your source it fails to mention initiating legislation, and you are totally ignoring the court powers it still has, and those that it had until just 6 years ago. The House of Lords is far from toothless.

Blocking legislation for a year is far from insignificant and can be used in very meaningful ways. Even in Thailand that similar ability to block legislation has been significant. It stopped the PTP amnesty bill and was instrumental in bringing down the Yingluck government.

What is very, very clear in the UK is that the Lower House, the house that represents the people is the house that has all the power and when push comes to shove the lower house is the one that gets its way. What is also very, very clear is that what the Junta are setting up here is the exact opposite whereby unelected Generals, Senators, Judges, Bureaucrats and Commissioners have all the power and the elected MP's are essentially redundant.

You never named your source. It needs a link.

Your claim of "very very clear" isn't clear at all.

Perhaps you would like to read this. Remember Wiki is only as credible as the source links.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

Are we playing with words now?

Give it to them straight.

Yes unelected or indirectly elected it's for the good of this country and that's how it will be.

Whoever doesn't like it can have a cold shower to calm down.

It seems you need a hot shower for your brain to start working.

Edited February 26, 2015 by SOUTHERNSTAR

[candide]

A critical summary of the current state of information on how senate members will be chosen in the link below. As far as I understand:

- half of them (100) will be directly appointed,

- the other 100 will be elected by elected local and regional officials, that's why the word "indirect election" is used.

However, there is a small detail: the 100 "indirectly elected" senators are chosen from a list of 200 candidates previously selected by a committee of experts . So it's indirect election of appointed candidates.

So they will all be directly appointed or indirectly elected from a pool of appointed candidates. So 100% appointed.

The article also notice that outgoing local officials are currently replaced by appointed officials as the junta has suspended elections.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/130965/thai-juntas-constitution-drafters-to-introduce-indirectly-elected-senate/

[jdinasia]

Are we playing with words now?

Give it to them straight.

Yes unelected or indirectly elected it's for the good of this country and that's how it will be.

Whoever doesn't like it can have a cold shower to calm down.

At some stage, in the not too distant future, many millions of Thais are going to do much, much more than take a cold shower in response to this abysmal constitution foistered upon the nation by an unwanted and unpopular elite.

Your characterization of "unwanted and unpopular" doesn't seem to match how many of my Thai friends think of the NCPO.

Perhaps we know different Thai people, but I know farmers and generals and everything in between.

[seajae]

until such time as the constitution/charter and the senate start up/is shown to us I will refrain from commenting on them, trying to make out it is going to be a load of garbage is an unknown factor just as saying it is going to be great. Once it is released/sitting and we can read it/ see what they do then we can make informed comments on them without sticking our feet in our mouths but then a lot in here do that regularly anyway, guess they cant help themselves

Edited February 27, 2015 by seajae

[Rancid]

If a Senate is appointed or simply bought and paid for by money interests as is the case in most countries, what really apart from perception is the difference?

Either way they work on behalf of their sponsors, and that doesn't mean the middle or working classes.

Democracy is simply the illusion of choice, it let's the great unwashed believe the absurd notion that they actually have a voice.

[jdinasia]

If a Senate is appointed or simply bought and paid for by money interests as is the case in most countries, what really apart from perception is the difference?

Either way they work on behalf of their sponsors, and that doesn't mean the middle or working classes.

Democracy is simply the illusion of choice, it let's the great unwashed believe the absurd notion that they actually have a voice.

I remember that The Irony of Democracy was a textbook used in one of my Mdiv classes. The reactions of my classmates to the content was amusing.

[lucky11]

Are we playing with words now?

Give it to them straight.

Yes unelected or indirectly elected it's for the good of this country and that's how it will be.

Whoever doesn't like it can have a cold shower to calm down.

At some stage, in the not too distant future, many millions of Thais are going to do much, much more than take a cold shower in response to this abysmal constitution foistered upon the nation by an unwanted and unpopular elite.

I can't see how you can describe probably the most popular government Thailand has ever had as being "unpopular"!!!!

Have you not seen the approval ratings?

[heybruce]

Are we playing with words now?

Give it to them straight.

Yes unelected or indirectly elected it's for the good of this country and that's how it will be.

Whoever doesn't like it can have a cold shower to calm down.

At some stage, in the not too distant future, many millions of Thais are going to do much, much more than take a cold shower in response to this abysmal constitution foistered upon the nation by an unwanted and unpopular elite.

I can't see how you can describe probably the most popular government Thailand has ever had as being "unpopular"!!!!

Have you not seen the approval ratings?

Are you serious or is that sarcasm? It's difficult to tell in this forum.

[tomacht8]

Senate will consist of 200 members

(100 from 200) - half of whom will be chosen by a council of “experts.”

It's unclear how the body of experts will be chosen.

The other (100 from 200) - half will be former high-level politicians and bureaucrats such as prime ministers, military commanders, parliament speakers, judicial leaders, and representatives from other civic organizations.

Chosen or appointed by who?

Please no Thai Airways System here.

It is a little bit unclear for me, sorry.

Who chose – appoint –indirect elect – Who????

Would be good if they could publish a graphic as the people elect and how it then leads to the formation of parliament, the government and the Senate.

I thought they want to adapt the German model?

Where every 4 years the parliament of the federal states is elected and

time-shifted every four years the federal district government is elected.

So that each inhabitant can choose every 2 years, one for the state and two years later one for the country district.

The federal government makes the laws proposals.

The parliament of the federal states agrees to this, or give it back for revision.

The President, who is elected by the members of state Parliament has the power of veto and must agree with the new laws.

Changes to the Constitution require a majority of 75% and both parliaments have to agree.

The Information policy is unsatisfactory for me..

Edited March 1, 2015 by tomacht8

[chainarong]

Sorry , I am convinced that you do not have the best interests of the people and you are feathering your own nest, lets be honest, you really haven't been discreet .