Parties must put up three names for PM
The Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) has reduced the number of prime ministerial candidates each political party is required to unveil before elections from five to three.
CDC spokesman Norachit Sinhaseni said yesterday a new proposal requires parties to unveil up to three candidates each and inform the Election Commission of their lists before the election candidacy registration closes. Political parties cannot have the same candidates on their lists to prevent inter-party collaboration.
Under the original proposal, parties would be required to submit a list of between one and five candidates for prime minister prior to an election, with parliament then choosing the prime minister from the list after the election.
Each party would have complete freedom to nominate anyone they wanted, even if they are not an MP.
The proposal has drawn flak from political parties as it does not specify that a prime minister must be an elected representative, prompting speculation the premier can be chosen from outside the ranks of elected MPs.
Mr Norachit said the CDC wants the same eligibility rules applying to village and kamnan applicants also to apply to people wanting to stand as MPs.
The rule requires that candidates must not be involved in encroachment on forests or national parks and drug trafficking. The CDC felt the standard for MP candidates should not be lower than that of village heads and kamnan, Mr Norachit said.
The CDC has also concluded that a winning candidate in a constituency must obtain more votes than the number of “no” votes in the event of a larger than normal no vote such as a protest, which could render individual vote tallies insignificant.
In such constituencies where no candidates gain more votes than the number of “no” votes, poll reruns would be held and the previous candidates would not be allowed to run, adding the CDC stands by its proposal for a single ballot paper for both constituency and party-list MPs.
On matters where the constitution’s authority is seen as inapplicable, the charter writers suggest the Constitutional Court be the final arbiter.