Rights agency the next to be replaced

THE National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) appears likely to be the next target for mass dismissal of members, after the Election Commission.
NHRC chairman What Tingsamitr disclosed yesterday that the matter was clearly mentioned in Article 60 of a new law on the rights body, written by the Constitution Drafting Commission.
He disputed a claim by the drafters that the current NHRC members need to be replaced because they lack diversity and their work “ran into problems continuously”. He said that the argument was inaccurate.
The NHRC chairman warned that the agency’s work would be severely affected, as there would be “vacuum” before their successors would be appointed. “Also, mass dismissal of all NHRC members will not benefit the people in power at all. They will be viewed as persecuting the current members and want to have some people to replace them,” he said. 
Meanwhile, the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) is scheduled to debate the proposed organic law on the Election Commission (EC) today in its second reading. 
Changes have been made to the original version written by the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC), covering 18 clauses of the bill.
Those revisions were suggested by the NLA’s vetting committee headed by Assembly member Tuang Unthachai, who is a former senator. 
This is one of four organic laws that are required by the new Constitution prior to the next election. The others are new laws on political parties, the election of MPs, and the appointment of senators.
An NLA vetting panel has suggested an extra qualification for election commissioners and the selection panel. If this is backed by the majority of MPs, members of both the EC and the selection panel will need to “have no history of supporting or being subject to any political party”. 
This qualification has been added to the usual requirements suggested in the original draft bill written by the CDC. They include neutrality, integrity and honesty and a good understanding of the EC’s work for election commissioners, a high degree of responsibility, courage in performing the duty and exemplary ethical behaviour for the selection committee members. 
The revised draft requires that the five current EC members, headed by Supachai Somcharoen, need to vacate their seats as soon as the new law on the EC takes effect, although they can assume the caretaker roles until the new set of election commissioners take over from them. 
In the CDC’s original draft, present EC members will remain in office until their respective terms end. 
Under the revised bill, the current EC members would be compensated with an extra gratuity for making an early exit – their present salary and remuneration would be multiplied by the number of years they have served, and that sum would become their severance pay. 
The new EC members will be nominated by the selection panel within 60 days, two times the time period suggested by the CDC in its original draft of the law on the EC.
At least 14 members of the NLA have reserved their right to oppose the vetting committee’s proposal for current EC members to step down as soon as the new law takes effect. 
Those lawmakers feel that the current election commissioners have the right to remain in office until their term ends. Observers expected most NLA members to agree with the vetting committee.
After the legislative assembly votes in the third and final reading, the approved draft will be submitted to the Constitutional Court, the EC and the CDC to determine if it is in line with the spirit of the new Charter. This process will take 15 days.
If it is decided that the version approved by the NLA goes against the charter’s spirit, a joint committee will be set up with 11 members from the EC, Constitutional Court, NLA and vetting committee to settle the differences. However, observers said the likelihood of such a joint panel was very low, as both the vetting committee and many NLA members seemed to have agreed on the bill, particularly regarding the current EC members’ remaining time in office.
It is likely that the present election commissioners may be dissatisfied with the shortened term in office due to this new law. But if they openly object to the revised bill on their own, they could be viewed as having a |conflict of interest and doing so for personal benefit.