The Senate vote was a lot of both expected and tense, with plenty of contradictions.
Dubbed by detractors as the most difficult Senate surveys in the world, the vote, the result of which is expected on July 2, was exciting, to say the least, according to spectators.
The last, national- election large took place on Wednesday and has already ignited complaints of vote rigging, among different reported irregularities.
The Upper House was elected twice, but this time it was done by skilled organizations all over the country rather than the electorate itself.
The second thoroughly and immediately elected Senate with 200 people, whose name extended over six decades, took office in 1997.
The primary opposition Move Forward Party, one of the most outspoken critics, slammed having an election that was off-limits to the electorate.
A three-tier election was called for at the district, municipal, and federal levels following the Senate poll, which was intended to be a key component of the present constitution created during the previous Prayut Chan- o cha administration.
At the city level, there was an intra-group election where five candidates won the most votes among the various groups. In the cross- group ballot, the three individuals with the highest number of votes were shortlisted per party, or 60 across 20 organizations.
At the municipal level, the selected candidates followed a similar process. Only two candidates with the most vote in each party advanced to the last national stage, where the top 10 senators from each of the 20 groups were chosen this moment during the inter-group poll.
The city election on June 9 and the municipal election on June 16 were the two biggest drags in the voting process this month.
Despite what many watchers described as a laborious and tedious surveys, it was still effective despite the fact that 2, 020 applicants had their election eligibility denied. Some spectators believed that the number had fallen far short of the 100 000 persons who had anticipated contesting it.
Despite the fact that the Senate race was not the simplest vote to organize, some observers found a throng of candidates with mild to modest professional profiles.
According to the experts, in the past, the Senate, both appointed or elected, has long been dismissed as an exclusive membership where seats were “reserved” for movers and shakers, including leading businessmen, ex- officials and those with near ties to major politicians.
This time around, the Senate surveys promised something unique, and it resonated with some experts, the researchers said.
For instance, individuals were charged a reasonable membership fee of 2, 500 ringgit. For the first time, several professionals with relevant careers believed they could make it and have a chance to gain respect from other professionals who would later become senators.
” It was their opportunity to venture into a previously untapped area of the rich and powerful. The Senate comes across as finally being accessible”, according to an analyst.
However, the Senate poll was anything but smooth sailing. Even before the law enforcing the Senate election was passed, accusations were made against some political parties for” singling out” potential candidates as “one of them,” sharing their ideology, and backing their cause.
Senators must be political party independent, per the law.
The Election Commission (EC ) immediately issued the rules for candidacy, which immediately sparked a backlash, primarily from the candidates themselves.
The Central Administrative Court ( CAC ) granted the EC the right to file a petition prohibiting candidates from introducing themselves via social media and the internet. They were only permitted to disclose information about themselves to intra- and interprofessional groups that had the authority to vote at each of the three levels.
The CAC later requested that the regulation that forbids candidates from revealing details about their professional and personal backgrounds to candidates be published on social media platforms and through mass media outlets be dropped.
The EC did not appeal the court’s decision.
The commission recently found itself in hot water for invalidating some candidates because their districts only had one type of candidate. This could be against the law, the EC was informed.
The EC made a mistake by excluding applicants from seven districts where only one of the 20 professional groups had applicants. According to Komsan Pohkong, deputy dean of the Faculty of Law at Rangsit University and expert from the House committee on the 1997 charter draft, the commission most likely lacked the authority to invalidate candidacy on that grounds.
He suggested that the EC should instead set aside the time to register those districts before the June 9 vote. According to the Senate election law, the process should have continued with the candidates who were present.
The EC claims that the book performed the invalidation.
Sawang Boonmee, the EC secretary- general, said on May 27 that seven districts out of 928 had just one group of applicants. They included the districts of Nan, Pang Sila Thong district in Kamphaeng Phet, Sam Chai district in Kalasin, Mae Rim, Na Noi, and Chiang Klang districts in Nan, and Umphang district in Tak.
He said EC regulations stipulate a cross- group election. Candidates for those seven districts were invalid because they did not have any other groups to cast the cross-group ballot.
The biggest revelation, however, came from caretaker senator Somchai Swangkarn’s claim that 149 Senate candidates had already been declared winners at the district and provincial levels before the voting had taken place.
He made what he claimed was a list of candidates who knew they would win the district and provincial elections.
The 149 candidates were identified only by their initials, the number of their professional groups, and the provinces in which they were competing.
Additionally, Mr. Somchai threatened legal action against all those responsible for collusion, including a number of politicians who allegedly hired these candidates to run for the Senate as part of a vote-rigging plot.
Ittiporn Boonpracong, the EC chairman, has pledged to launch an investigation into the allegation without delay. He argued, however, that the list was unlikely to be accurate because he had never heard of any previous instances of malpractice.
Moving election goalposts
Politicians are reportedly considering reintroducing the country’s electoral system, which could result in the party-list method being eliminated.
Before last year’s general election, the previous revision to the election process for MPs was introduced, which saw the return of the dual-voting process and the resizing of constituency and list-MP numbers, with constituency MPs increasing from 350 to 400 and list-MPs decreasing from 150 to 100.
Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan, the leader of the opposition Thai Sang Thai Party ( TST ), recently revealed the most recent electoral system change attempt.
The veteran politician claimed that the party-list system would be eliminated in Pheu Thai’s charter amendment proposals, leaving the total number of constituency MPs at 500. Citing a source in the ruling Pheu Thai Party.
This is thought to be a Pheu Thai strategy to counteract the main opposition’s growing influence and popularity, Move Forward Party ( MPF).
According to a King Prajadhipok’s Institute survey released in May, the MFP would likely win 208 House seats, compared with 151 it captured last year, if the election was held soon.
Pheu Thai, however, would retain only about 105 seats if the polls were to take place now, a significant drop from the 141 seats the party won last year.
However, Khunying Sudarat’s remark was dismissed as baseless by Pheu Thai heavyweights.
Sudarat: ‘ Pheu Thai wants changes ‘
Before she resigned as the TST, Khunying Sudarat previously served as a Pheu Thai deputy leader. A rumored rift with party stalwarts forced her to quit.
Pheu Thai list-MP Noppadon Pattama urged the public not to waste time discussing it because the idea to ditch the party-list method never existed, while Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Phumtham Wechayachai jokingly suggested Khunying Sudarat might have heard about it in a dream.
Khunying Sudarat, however, revealed to the Bangkok Post that she had heard from Pheu Thai MPs that their party was considering removing the party-list system in favor of the MFP.
According to Khunying Sudarat, the party has determined that its current strategy of combining MPs from political families, known as” Ban Yai” or” Big Houses,” may not be sufficient to ensure dominance in the upcoming elections.
The party-list system, according to Thanaporn Sriyakul, the political and public policy analysis institute director, wo n’t affect the MFP’s election chances because the party is growing stronger.
Citing the results of the previous election, the MFP lost by a small margin of between 100- 700 votes, in 60 constituencies. The party also bagged more than 14 million votes in the party- list race nationwide, which could be” channelled” into the constituency system.
” The MFP enjoys strong support throughout the nation. If the party chooses the right electoral strategy, it will be able to win seats in constituencies it did n’t win last year and have a good chance of capturing more than 250 House of Representatives seats, he said.
Mr. Thanaporn claimed that because it will also consider the MFP’s losses when determining its election strategy, it is highly unlikely that the “talk” about Pheu Thai trying to ditch the party-list system will actually be true.
However, a vote excluding the party-list system, according to Phichai Ratnatilaka Na Bhuket, program director for politics and development strategy at the National Institute of Development Administration, is not a possibility.
Following the 2019 election, rumors emerged that Pheu Thai and the PPRP attempted to have the party list removed, which resulted in the charter amendments, which reversed the single-voting method to the dual-voting one, which reduced the number of list-MPs.
Pheu Thai strategists and paroled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who is highly regarded by Pheu Thai, may not want to take any chances with the MFP’s rise in popularity, he said, as some pundits predict the MFP may win more list seats in the upcoming polls.
” It’s possible that some Pheu Thai figures believe the MFP can win at least 60 list seats, leaving only 40 seats to be split between the remaining parties. So, Pheu Thai strategists may not want its main political opponent to benefit]from the list system ]”, he said.
As it turned out, the main opposition party was given a boost by the party- list system in the last two elections, according to observers.
In the 2019 election, the Future Forward Party ( FFP), the MFP’s predecessor, was awarded the largest number of party- list seats, while Pheu Thai did not get any.
The FFP was later disbanded because of a loan that it obtained from party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.
In last year’s polls, both the MFP and Pheu Thai won 112 constituency seats. However, the MFP secured 39 list seats– 10 more than the ruling party– and emerged as the election winner.