The majority “blue” group of senators wields tremendous power to find or accept proposed appointees for impartial agencies, and a new, fruitless attempt to brand replacements for two cheerful judges in the Constitutional Court shows this.
A check of the Senate’s fierce power came just when the room convened a meeting to get two new judges to achieve cheerful Constitutional Court judges Nakharin Mektrairat, the judge’s leader, and Panya Udchanon.
Earmarked as their repairs were Siripan Nogsuan Sawasdee, a political science professor at Chulalongkorn University, and Chatri Atjananont, a previous director-general of the Department of Consular Affairs.
Both had sailed through the selection procedure conducted by an ad hoc committee headed by Supreme Court leader Chanakarn Theeravechpolkul. The commission also included House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha and criticism head Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut.
The two finalists were tipped to win the jury content. But, ominous signs emerged at the beginning of the Senate conference, which soon took a dramatic change.
Vocal senator Nanthana Nanthawaropas asserted the besieged Senate had no firm approving determine meetings. In fact, the meeting should have been suspended pending a Department of Special Investigation ( DSI) probe into the alleged rigging of the Senate elections.
She feared any Constitutional Court courts greenlighted by the Senate may be voided after if and when the ballot rigging case is found to have material and a number of lawmakers are disqualified.
Sen Nanthana’s statement, however, drew the ire of the majority, “blue-affiliated” senators who insisted on pushing ahead with the selections, citing legal risks the Senate could face for dereliction of duty if it failed to hold the vote.
Blue is the colour that is associated with the coalition Bhumjaithai Party.
An observer said Sen Nanthana, who tends to align politically with the “orange” camp– the main opposition People’s Party– had yet another verbal showdown with the blue senators.
The meeting was rocked by heated exchanges, with Sen Boonchan Nualsai retorting that the DS I’s allegations had not been proven in a court of law. The Senate, therefore, had the rightful duty to fulfill its lawmaking and appointment responsibilities.
Sen Wuthichart Kalayanamitr, secretary to the Senate whip, said no injunction had been issued to suspend the Senate and that its judicial appointments fully complied with regulations and the constitution.
” It’s as clear as day that the Senate has done nothing outside of what the constitution allows. People can tell that we play by the rules”, he told the meeting.
The debate then turned to the qualifications and backgrounds of the two judge candidates, with many, notably minority senators such as Angkana Neelapaijit, Ratchaneekorn Thongthip, and Dr Premsak Piayura, generally satisfied with the candidates ‘ credentials.
The atmosphere cooled when the chamber agreed to proceed with the meeting behind closed doors and further discuss “delicate issues” surrounding the qualifications of the two contenders.
The Senate ended the meeting in the early afternoon when Senate Speaker Mongkol Surasajja called for a vote, which resulted in both candidates missing out on the posts.
It was reported the two candidates did not strike a chord with the majority “blue-affiliated” senators, who refused to back them.
The candidates were dealt a crushing blow in a vote in which Ms Siripan received an approval vote of 43 against 136, with seven abstentions and one no vote. Mr Chatri had 47 votes in favour, 115 against, 22 abstentions, and three did not register to vote.
Both fell way short of securing half the Senate’s support, or at least 100 votes, the minimum requirement.
Ms Siripan was criticised for signing a mass petition seeking to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code, or the lese majeste law. In a letter to the Senate panel vetting the qualifications of nominees, she explained she was merely exercising her right to voice her academic view.
She also responded to a Senate query on her stance on the imposition of strict ethical standards for political officeholders, which has been blamed for Srettha Thavisin’s dismissal as prime minister. The Constitutional Court dismissed him in August last year over an ethical violation related to the appointment of Pichit Chuenban as a minister.
Even though Mr Chatri, a career diplomat, has the image of a politically neutral technocrat, he was not the “blue” senators ‘ choice from the outset. They reportedly favoured Sarawut Songsivilai, a former Highways Department chief, and Surachai Khan-arsa, a former governor of several provinces. Neither made the cut in the selection process.
Meanwhile, Ms Siripan made several noteworthy points when she showcased her vision in the candidacy selection process, according to a source.
She emphasised that the explanations furnished and rulings passed by the Constitutional Court should strictly and explicitly adhere to the letter of the constitution to prevent broad interpretations.
The academic observed that since a definition of ethics and moral integrity has often been sought, any such definition must be brief and kept within a narrow scope. This would enable people to have a correct understanding of the definition.
Ms Siripan added that the Constitutional Court should do its duty and invoke its power in a way that opens up an avenue for hearing “everyday” cases. The court should forge a closer relationship with the people, which would bode well for its relevance and accessibility.
Is the opposition waning?
Parit: ‘ Public wary of casino deal’
The Paetongtarn Shinawatra administration recently endorsed the Casino and Entertainment Complex Bill without dissent from any of its coalition partners, not even the Bhumjaithai Party, which had staunchly opposed the idea.
Just last August, Chaichanok Chidchob, the Bhumjaithai Party secretary-general, publicly denounced the project, citing four key concerns.
First the casino-entertainment scheme would never resolve the issue of illegal gambling and could actually increase both underground and legal betting, second, there’s no clear indication as to how the state and the public will benefit from the policy, third, the claim that it will drive tourism is unconvincing, and finally it fails to spell out exactly how Thai workers can secure jobs at the casinos.
To date, the government has not amended the bill to address these concerns, according to observers, who are now wondering what exactly made Bhumjaithai change its stance.
A similar question is also being raised about another coalition partner, the Democrats, who even called for a referendum on whether such a law should exist at all.
Chaichana Detdecho, deputy secretary-general of the Democrat Party, was quoted as saying back in August that the party would not support the bill. He proposed that if the government wanted to boost state revenue, it could do so by legalising and taxing long-existing underground lotteries.
Now there is no pushback from the Democrat heavyweights either. What changed?
The bill is tentatively scheduled for an April 9 parliament meeting, just a day before the current parliament session takes a break. With a long queue of legislative drafts pending House scrutiny, the government needs a good reason to reprioritise and secure a place for the bill’s first reading.
According to observers, Bhumjaithai’s silence has set off alarm bells and fueled speculation of a backroom deal between the two coalition heavyweights.
Parit Wacharasindhu, a People’s Party ( PP ) MP, said he raised concerns during the no-confidence debate that the public was increasingly wary about a deal being struck among coalition partners over the project.
He pointed out that the bill gives power to the Ministry of Interior, currently supervised by Bhumjaithai Party leader Anutin Charnvirakul, to consider issues related to gambling licences.
The opposition MP questioned where the issue is heading– possibly the legalisation of online gambling in exchange for a casino-entertainment complex?
However, Olarn Thinbangtieo, a political science lecturer at Burapha University, said the government’s push for this bill seems more about political timing as the censure debate has already ended.
With the prime minister easily surviving the no-confidence motion and coalition unity at an all-time high, Pheu Thai is seizing the moment to fast-track its agenda, he said.
But the real test begins when the bill is scrutinised in the House, and Bhumjaithai, despite its silence, could use the bill to leverage political negotiations with the ruling party.
Moreover, proposed revisions can be expected during the vetting process, with some coalition parties likely to distance themselves by claiming their MPs have the right to vote independently, he said.
Under the bill, Thai punters must pay a fee of 5, 000 baht and show proof they have at least 50 million baht in their bank account to enter a casino. But details of the bill are not set in stone, as parliament has the final say.
” We’ll have to see how this plays out. And even if the bill clears the House, there’s still another major hurdle– the Senate”, Mr Olarn said.
The majority of senators are believed to be closely aligned with Bhumjaithai.
Thanaporn Sriyakul, director of the Political and Public Policy Analysis Institute, said Pheu Thai and Bhumjaithai appear to have thrashed out their differences.
Turning Buri Ram, the Bhumjaithai Party’s stronghold, into an entertainment hub would be a breeze as the province is already a sports city boasting the Buriram International Circuit and a football stadium.
With a water or theme park and a casino which is capped at 10 % of the total area, it would become a fully integrated entertainment complex, according to Mr Thanaporn.
Ms Paetongtarn is scheduled to visit Buri Ram next week, fuelling speculation about a done deal.
” It’s a clear signal that an agreement has been reached. No matter what people in other provinces think, as long as Buri Ram benefits, that seems to be all that matters”, Mr Thanaporn said.
According to Deputy Finance Minister Julapun Amornvivat, the government aims to push the draft bill through parliament during the current session and the entire process, from drafting to final approval, is expected to take about a year.