Thai editorial: Role and power of Senate set for fresh debate

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
Role and power of Senate set for fresh debate
The Nation

Charter drafters try yet again to create an upper House that is a legitimate screening body of draft laws

BANGKOK: -- Thailand is back to debating whether the Senate is really relevant and, if so, what measures should be taken to enable it to play its supposed role for the country's best interest.

The discussion remains low profile but is expected to intensify next year. The atest reports confirm that the "Upper House" will still be there after the next election, with some intriguing details on how senators will be selected. Things look good on paper, it has to be said, but, as we know all too well, it's the implementation that matters.

Let's skip the endless debate on whether we really need the Senate. The measures being worked out by the charter drafters appear promising when it comes to making the Upper House an effective legislative "screening" tool. To cut a long story short, senators would, hopefully, be representatives of "experts" in all necessary fields. For example, educators would elect their representative(s) who would use experience and expertise in assessing legislation related to education.

The drafters are so optimistic about their measures that they have decided to allow relatives of members of the House of Representatives, or the Lower House, to vie for Senate posts. Moreover, candidates will not face restrictions on their education level. Simply put, the drafters trust the judgement of such "experts", believing that they wouldn't elect, say, a bad doctor when choosing someone to represent the medical profession.

Thailand's senators always faced two major criticisms. Critics of their existence often noted the "undemocratic" nature of how they got the position. Those who supported their existence often claimed senators were little more than "rubber stamps" of whoever was in power. The supposed task of legislative screening was allegedly lost either way.

The measures being pondered by the Constitution Drafting Committee are the latest attempts to make senators more relevant and a credible body for screening draft laws. To have people in related fields elect their representatives for the Upper House may be a compromise between dictatorial appointees and senators who come from direct election, who may not be different from MPs in terms of expertise and political ties.

The Senate was often a chamber everyone wanted to control. There are many examples of destructive, cut-throat politics stemming from that. The last controversy involved the Yingluck administration's bill that sought to absolve everyone criminalised as part of the political strife. Senators' role in the "Amnesty Bill" affair was highly questionable and contributed to its damaging consequences.

Thailand's recent charters gave the Senate big powers. In addition to considerable legislative authority, the Upper House had a big say on appointing members of so-called "independent organisations" like the Constitution Court, the National Counter Corruption Commission, the Ombudsmen, and the Human Rights Commission. These independent agencies were always accused of bias and prejudice against or in favour of certain politicians.

Whether the Senate should come from direct election, or a mixed election-appointment formula, or shouldn't exist at all is a political debate that has got Thailand nowhere. The country, after all, has tried all methods. It is important, however, to restore the Senate's image as a genuine legislative screening body and get rid of the lure that always sent Senate candidates seeking protection from political parties whenever there was an election.

Being a genuine legislative screening body is the Senate's life purpose. If the Upper House can perform that task with integrity, independence and expertise, its existence is worthwhile. If not, there is no reason for it to exist.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Role-and-power-of-Senate-set-for-fresh-debate-30275792.html

-- The Nation 2015-12-28

[Srikcir]

"senators would, hopefully, be representatives of "experts" in all necessary fields."

Yes, senators represent "experts" and not the "Thai people."

Whether the Senate should come from direct election, or a mixed election-appointment formula, or shouldn't exist at all is a political debate that has got Thailand nowhere. The country, after all, has tried all methods."

When did Thailand ever have a 100% directly elected Senate? At best it was 50% and the elected Senators felt they were ostracized by the indirectly elected Senators.

There are countries using unicameral legislatures - a notable feature in communist regimes such as China and Vietnam, and in socialist regimes such as Sweden and Venezuela. Both they all obviously do not reflect "Thainess."