The Yingluck government and ruling party Pheu Thai received a sensitive blow from the Constitutional Court yesterday. The proposal to change the composition of the Senate is against the constitution. The bill turns the Senate into a family business that leads to a power monopoly that undermines democracy.
A little history. The government has proposed to elect the Senate in its entirety and no longer appoint half. The ban on candidacy by family members will be lifted and the number of senators will be increased from 150 to 200. The House of Representatives and Senate have approved the proposal and Prime Minister Yingluck has submitted it to the king for signature. The Court considered the case because Democrats, who are heavily outnumbered in parliament, asked for a review of the constitutionality of the bill.
The Court found that the proposal is unconstitutional. It cracked some hard nuts about the MPs voting on behalf of others. 'Dishonest. In breach of parliament's rules. In violation of parliamentarians' honesty.' The request to dissolve the governing parties and to deprive the MPs who voted in favor of the proposal of their parliamentary seats was rejected by the Court.
Opposition party Democrats believe that Prime Minister Yingluck should resign to show responsibility for 'a wrong proposal'. The presidents of the House and Senate must also resign. The party is considering impeachment proceedings against the 312 MPs who voted in favor of the proposal. Democrats say the ruling also sets a precedent for two other constitutional amendment proposals.
The United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), which has held a rally in support of the government at Rajamangala Stadium for the past two days, has decided to call off the rally. UDD leader Jatuporn Prompan told the approximately 30.000 attendees (estimate Bangkok Post) to go home and prepare for the new battle. "Since we can't change the constitution article by article, we're going to change the entire constitution."
The red shirts are calling for the resumption of the parliamentary debate, which was halted last year by the Constitutional Court. The Court then recommended that a referendum be held first on the need for change. The constitution that is causing so much commotion was adopted in 2007 after the military coup by a government helped by the coup plotters.
Point by point, the most important considerations of the Court:
- The Speaker and Deputy Speakers of the House of Representatives have stripped some MPs of the right to speak [to wrap up the debate quickly].
- The proposal gives politicians total power over parliament and that is a step backwards.
- The bill makes the House of Representatives and the Senate one and the same House. It offers politicians who want to seize power by unconstitutional means the opportunity to fully control parliament.
- The bill turns the Senate into a family business that creates a power monopoly that undermines democracy.
- Turning the Senate into a fully elected chamber, which is no different from the House of Representatives, is detrimental to the core and substance of the bicameral legislature and allows politicians to fully control the parliament.
(Source: Bangkok Post, 21 November 2013)
More news later today in News from Thailand.
Submitted communication
Looking for a nice gift for Sinterklaas or Christmas? Buy The Best of Thailand Blog. A booklet of 118 pages with fascinating stories and stimulating columns from eighteen bloggers, a spicy quiz, useful tips for tourists and photos. Order now
Rarely have I read something as strange as the Constitutional Court's consideration that parliament cannot be the domain of elected politicians.
The distrust in elected politicians in Thailand is understandable. But can appointed senators be trusted? What interests do they defend?
With its ruling, the Court has created a legal barrier on the road to popular sovereignty and democracy.
Within Thai political relations, I see every reason for the Court to decide not to elect the Senate. The danger that only confidants/family members are “chosen” and placed would be too great. Do not view Thai (Asian) elections and appointments from a Western perspective, such as in the Netherlands, where the composition of the 1st chamber is determined by indirect elections. The most important thing now is that the Court has not allowed a party to bend a (fragile) constitution to its own will. That's the biggest gain right now. A question to be answered as to whether a Senate appointee is preferred is one that will be answered as Thai society develops/modernizes. A big step has now been taken, thumbs up. They are not there yet!
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Alex. I will add two things. 1 The (almost half) appointed Senate elects the members of the Constitutional Court, the Elections Commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission, the President of the Supreme Court and some other courts and these people in turn appoint the appointed senators . A fine example of hand-clapping and horse-trading. Trust me when I say that these procedures are not only based on expertise but also on political convictions. 2 Where was the Constitutional Court when the military coup plotters tore up the 2006 Constitution (affectionately known as the People's Constitution) in September 1997? By remaining silent then, they have now completely lost their right to speak.
The Constitutional Court does not serve the interests of democracy.
@ Tino Kuis Dear Tino, You ask where the Court was in 2006/2007. I presume because no one has complained to the Court. At least I cannot assume that the Court is allowed to start proceedings on its own initiative, but that is fodder for lawyers. I find Alex's reasoning stronger: The House of Representatives has the right to amend the Constitution in accordance with Article 291 of the Constitution.
My complements Dick. A court can only make judgments if a case is submitted for assessment. Has everything to do with separation of powers: Legislative, executive and judicial. The Trias Politica, this is the basis for every democratic constitutional state.
And no matter how childish the Thai politicians are, Thailand is a democratic constitutional state.
Yes. This was the second sensitive blow to the nose of Thaksin and associates in a short time. First the rejection of the 'revised' amnesty law and now the judgment of the Constitutional Court. A few days ago, the Pheu Thai and the red shirts proudly proclaimed that they would ignore any decision of the court because that court would not have jurisdiction in this case. Now they run off with their tails between their legs. It is clear that the momentum is not for the Pheu Thai. I estimate that after yesterday's verdict there was a lot of discussion (and Skyped with abroad) in the top of the Red Shirts what to do: accept the defeat (and thereby also endorse the primacy of the Thai legal system) or ignore the verdict and be accused that justice is only justice if the Pheu Thai gets its way. Fortunately, they chose defeat. Of course, there are only echoes from leaders that they will change the entire Constitution. But first of all it is time for reflection and an internal evaluation of how and why things went so wrong. It is getting busy again on the Bangkok-Hong Kong flight route.
Thailand is not a democracy until further notice, the Phue Thai's proposal meant that sons, daughters, husbands and wives could all sit together in the Senate. In addition, there was a bill that allowed the government to conclude foreign agreements without parliamentary approval. And if that is not enough, there was a bill that the 2 trillion investment program could be implemented without parliamentary control. In short, the door to unbridled corruption was thrown wide open. The best example is the HST plans that are in fact a real estate scam for the benefit of the friends of the friends, because there is nothing more absurd than an HST line to Khorat
@henry You translate trillion as trillion, but it should be trillion. I've made that mistake before too. So the sequence is million – billion – trillion – quadrillion – trillion.
As regards the proposal on agreements with foreign countries, some agreements still require approval, but not all. The government also no longer has to consult with parliament prior to discussions. This is currently the case in the border issue with Cambodia. The end result must be submitted to parliament, but preliminary consultation with parliament would no longer be necessary. You have also given a nice summary of the hot topics.