CDC agrees on indirectly elected Senate; nine constitutional court judges

[rooster59]

CDC agrees on indirectly elected Senate; nine constitutional court judges

BANGKOK, 26 November 2015 (NNT) - The authors of Thailand’s new constitution have agreed on nine constitutional court judges and an indirectly elected Senate.

Udom Rathamarit, member of the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC), spoke of the charter drafter’s recent meeting, saying the CDC has agreed that of the nine constitutional court judges, three will be selected from the Supreme Court, two from the Administrative Court, one from a pool of law academia, one from a pool of political science or public administration academia and two from a pool of experts.

The Constitutional Court will also be given the power to review non-controversial cases in order to make suggestions to related agencies.

In addition, the meeting heard a report from the CDC’s subcommittee on legislative structure regarding the composition of the House of Representatives. Under the new charter’s stipulation, seats in the lower house reserved for party-list members will not exceed 150.

As for the origins of members of the Senate, Mr Udom revealed that the CDC has agreed that all Senators will be indirectly elected from a diverse group of sectors and occupations in society.

-- NNT 2015-11-27

[Reigntax]

Indirectly elected or just appointed to the highest bidder, contributer or those more capable of replenishing the contents of the brown paper bags.

Maybe it will provide that people can indirectly vote also which I assume means the military will cast your vote on your behalf.

[tbthailand]

the CDC has agreed that all Senators will be indirectly elected

so in other words, not elected, but selected...

[CWMcMurray]

Indirectly elected... So does that mean that the groups choosing the senators would be elected?

If not, who are the groups that choose the senators?

How does one become a member of these groups?

This is the million dollar question...

In all the articles and discussions I have heard and read, I have never seen any clear explanation on how these committee members are chosen.

Is it similar to an electoral college or are there positions given to certain families (nobility) or are they given to those holding certain positions in the government / military / clergy / academia / public companies or are they appointed by political parties ?

Or some combination of the above?

Are they life time positions? Are they one time position for each election?

I am really genuinely interested in knowing the answers to these questions ... Does anyone have any idea ?

[Caitrin]

Indirectly elected should be like the electoral college or the former state of senators in the United States, or the prime minister in many parliamentary systems (who are elected by their constituency, but not by the nation as a whole, and then placed in the position of prime minister by their party).

If this is simply allowing families or corporations to choose senators, that's hardly election indirect or otherwise. Now, if sectors/trades/industries have elections where everyone from janitor to CEO has a vote, then it might produce something more akin to direct election, and it would mirror the idea behind the U.S. senate, where the House of Representatives was by population, but each state receives two senators. If each sector/trade/industry gets two senators, no matter how large or small, but the House of Representatives is based on population... That could actually produce a system of checks and balances that makes sense to me. That doesn't sound bad.

...Not sure I think that's really what's going on here, though.

[JAG]

And two more ducks appear in the row, to wait "at ease" for the dawn of the great new order which will be "Thai Style" democratic government.

[CWMcMurray]

Agree that devil is in the details and doesn't mean it is automatically 'bad' if not direct election of senators, so long as the choosing process is fair and in a way that allows for checks and balance and the avoidance of corruption

I am not sure many know or remember ... But even in the US, Senators were not always directly elected ...

It wasn't until 1913 that the 17th amendment was ratified in the US allowing for direct elections of Senators... Before that, Senators were choosing by the state legislatures ... And was like this for more than 100 years..

Also understand that the House of Lords in the UK are also appointed.. Not directly elected ....

Also don't think any would say that the US or UK are some how 'undemocratic countries'...

So I don't say appointing senators is a bad thing, just want more info on how they would be appointed to make a final opinion

[Caitrin]

Agree that devil is in the details and doesn't mean it is automatically 'bad' if not direct election of senators, so long as the choosing process is fair and in a way that allows for checks and balance and the avoidance of corruption

I am not sure many know or remember ... But even in the US, Senators were not always directly elected ...

It wasn't until 1913 that the 17th amendment was ratified in the US allowing for direct elections of Senators... Before that, Senators were choosing by the state legislatures ... And was like this for more than 100 years..

Also understand that the House of Lords in the UK are also appointed.. Not directly elected ....

Also don't think any would say that the US or UK are some how 'undemocratic countries'...

So I don't say appointing senators is a bad thing, just want more info on how they would be appointed to make a final opinion

I think it's covered in both in U.S. History and U.S. Government (both standard high school courses), that the original compromise was that senators would be indirectly elected. People chose their legislatures which then chose the senators. Pretty sure you're not supposed to be able to pass those courses without being tested on that fact.

I can't speak to what any non-USian knows about this. I think the Aussies are supposed to know this, because when I studied in Canberra, I learned that the Australian institution was heavily based on the American institution intentionally, and several of the weirder traditions were brought over, too, until after the initial Senate sessions, Aussies were like, "This is stupid. Why do we do this?" "Because the Americans do it." "...okay, let's not do this anymore. It's dumb." The filibuster is a good example. It was done like maybe two or three times before the Senate in Australia decided it was a stupid rule and got rid of it.

[JAG]

In the case of the House of Lords in the UK, their powers I believe are limited to returning legislation to the elected lower house (The House of Commons), with what are in effect suggested amendments. If the Commons choose to ignore these amendments there are a number of constitutional tools which allow them to do so.

Like much in the rather idiosyncratic United Kingdom parliamentary system this is governed by conventions and traditions. Although strange to those of you with codified constitutions, it seems to work for us.

The suggested indirectly elected Senate here will be a very different beast.

[Srikcir]

Several OPs believe there is a simularity between the selection of the proposed Thai Senate and the USA electoral college.

There is none.

The electoral college has no legislative powers, no oversight authority and only exists in the POTUS election process. While the college might not be entirely elected, it has been in place since 1787. The American electorate has apparently decided by self-determination not to change it.

Speaking of self-determination, none of the proposed nine judges will result from any electoral process. They will be selected, presumbly by the current Junta and its clone organizations.

These two provisions continue to reflect NCPO Meechai's adherence to the Junta's constitutional agenda. In that aspect he is the right man for Chairman of the CDC. But clearly he does not work for the Thai electorate.

[tbthailand]

And two more ducks appear in the row, to wait "at ease" for the dawn of the great new order which will be "Thai Style" democratic government.

to wait "at ease" for the dawn of the great new order

Dawn, ... Most people take a dump every morning... but it looks like the junta is going to roll a turd like nothing any of us have ever seen...

[Thai at Heart]

In the case of the House of Lords in the UK, their powers I believe are limited to returning legislation to the elected lower house (The House of Commons), with what are in effect suggested amendments. If the Commons choose to ignore these amendments there are a number of constitutional tools which allow them to do so.

Like much in the rather idiosyncratic United Kingdom parliamentary system this is governed by conventions and traditions. Although strange to those of you with codified constitutions, it seems to work for us.

The suggested indirectly elected Senate here will be a very different beast.

The conventions in the UK were just ripped up over the tax credits with the house of Lords failing to pass the changes to tax credits.

Note, no one wanted a coup and no one threatened to overthrow anyone.