'Plan is to silence the Upper House'

 

The ongoing amendments would also allow spouses and children of MPs to contest for senatorial seats. This led to concern that the upper chamber would become a “spouse chamber”, as happened after the enactment of the 1997 charter. Most of all, concern has mounted that there would be no more independent groups like the Group of 40 Senators.

 

The Group of 40 Senators is seen as always opposing the plans of supporters of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The Thaksin side regards the group as its enemy. The group once asked the Constitutional Court to consider the status of Samak Sundaravej as the prime minister, leading to his disqualification. It also once boycotted the policy statement of then prime minister Somchai Wongsawat.

 

Rosana Tositrakul, a member of the Group of 40 Senators, said it was formed in 2008 when senators, who were opposed to charter amendments, held a meeting. That day, 40 senators joined the meeting so the group took the name of the Group of 40 Senators. Since then, any member of the group would be referred to by the group’s alias, although he or she might still express personal views.

 

Since the group was formed, their members have had luncheon meetings every month by using birthdays of group members for the dates for get-togethers. They often discuss current issues. Senator Paibul Nititawan coordinated and scheduled the meetings.

 

Rosana said that if all senators were required to earn their seats through elections, and there was no longer a Group of 40 Senators, some would still be able to perform their checks-and-balances duty in the House. She believes some senators would continue to monitor the government for the sake of righteousness in Parliament, although such a minority group of senators would always lose in the final voting.

 

She said the Senate would not be needed if the charter was amended to allow close relatives, like parents and siblings or spouses of MPs, to contest for senatorial seats because both MPs and senators would come from the same political bases and the Senate would not balance the power of the House. There would be conflicts of interest and the checks and balances system would be destroyed, she said.

 

“Senators should come from several professions. Since critics say appointed senators were selected by only a seven-member panel, I would like each profession to nominate a representative qualified to be a senator to be elected by the people, so that they will not be attacked as not being accountable to the community,” Rosana said.

 

Nirand Pithakwatchara, a member of the National Human Rights Commission and Ubon Ratchathani senator from 2000 to 2006, said when he was in the upper chamber, Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai Party tried to interfere in their work of the Senate. Nirand said he and his Senate friends at that time belonged to the minority side.

 

But Nirand expressed confidence that if senators worked with conscience and responsibility, they would perform their duties well no matter how the charter was amended.

 

He said he agreed with the principle of all senators holding office from elections. However, since senators would still come from the same political bases as MPs, their work should be monitored by the people, and the people should be provided a channel to impeach senators.

 

It has yet to be seen whether or not an entirely elected Senate, following the charter amendments, would turn into the chamber of MPs’ spouses as feared by critics.