Never judge a charter tweak by its cover
Judging by its cover, the National Legislative Assembly’s recent constitutional amendment proposal looks good. The proposal seems to be more acceptable and more compromising than the earlier controversial suggestion by a number of its member that appointed senators should be allowed to nominate a non-elected prime minister and bypass MPs’ prior consent.
In its list of proposed amendments submitted to the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) last Friday, the NLA agreed to not bypass the first step of nominating and selecting a premier, as stipulated in the charter, by allowing MPs to do their job and choose a suitable person from lists submitted by their political parties.
The NLA’s proposal managed to distract the public’s attention from the controversial idea to allow senators to nominate a prime minister. But the proposal, in fact, still maintains its hidden agenda to expand the power of appointed senators.
In the proposed amendments submitted to the CDC, the NLA suggested new, unknown rules to be incorporated during the charter amendment. These new rules will hinder MPs’ selection of a premier and in return give a greater say to appointed senators in the selection process.
The constitution stipulates what steps should be taken for the nomination of a prime minister. First, MPs will select a person from their lists for the top job. If the selection runs into a deadlock, more than one-half of MPs can propose to waive the political party nomination rule and nominate other candidates including non-elected ones.
Then, a joint sitting of the Lower and Upper houses can pass this resolution by a vote of not less than two-thirds of members. After that, it will be the MPs’ job to choose a premier from other non-elected options.
The extra question, passed in the constitutional referendum, allows senators — to be appointed by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) — to join the Lower House in the last process to vote for a non-elected person during the first five years following the promulgation of the constitution.
As the CDC is working on incorporating the essence of this extra question into its amendments of the charter, the controversial suggestion by some NLA members that appointed senators should have a role in nominating a nonelected premier prompted rebukes from politicians.
The NLA’s latest proposal seems to steer clear of such a controversial idea by allowing MPs to do their duty and choose a premier first. But it suggests a very tight time frame of 30 days for MPs to complete their task. Failure to meet the deadline will allow senators to intervene and nominate a non-elected premier and bypass the need for MPs’ prior consent.
The 30-day period is a very tight one in Thai politics. It is possible that the nomination and selection process by MPs could hit a deadlock. It is common that negotiations outside parliament usually take place ahead of such a process. There could be political lobbying to convince MPs to reject any proposed names from political party lists to pave the way for the non-democratic selection process.
Under the constitution, the nomination of an outsider for prime minister is a one-off option, which means it can only take place during the tenure of the first group of MPs elected in the first general election. But the NLA amendment proposal overrides this rule. It suggests that the nomination of a non-elected premier by senators should not be a oneoff option, but rather be kept alive for five years following the promulgation of the charter.
If the Lower House is dissolved before it completes its four-year term, the NLA simply suggests that senators should maintain their prime minister nomination power during the term of a new group of MPs if the Lower House fails to meet the 30-day deadline.
If accepted by the CDC, the NLA’s proposal will override the constitution’s spirit.
This new proposal by the NLA shows its proactive stance to enhance the power of appointed senators when it comes to the nomination and selection of a prime minister. It is not a compromise that takes heed of public opposition to the earlier controversial idea.
The NLA’s proposal will pose a challenge to the CDC when the latter revises the charter and decide how it will incorporate the suggestions. The CDC has made its stance known that it supports a non-elected premier option only if the country is in crisis. The CDC is to meet today in a bid to finalise the proposal before discussing it with the NLA.
The CDC, whose members are leading jurists, must read between the lines and understand the NLA’s hidden agenda. The jurists should maintain their principles without being distracted by the NLA’s proposal.
More importantly, the CDC must not underestimate the public’s ability to monitor this critical process of charter amendment.
If accepted by the CDC, the NLA’s proposal will override the constitution’s spirit.