Senate won't wait for scandal verdicts
The 130-7 vote against a motion to postpone approval of nominees for key positions in two independent agencies saw 13 abstentions.
The vote came despite potential conflicts of interest involving sitting senators who are facing legal charges for alleged collusion in last year's Senate election. The charges are being laid against them primarily by the EC, one of whose members could be selected by the Senate.
Nevertheless, the Senate yesterday blocked an urgent motion to delay the selection and approval of the Constitutional Court and EC. The motion cited an ongoing legal case related to the alleged poll collusion involving at least two-thirds of sitting senators.
Following a two-hour closed-door meeting, the Senate voted to reject the motion.
The Senate will proceed today with its scheduled agenda that includes approval of two nominees for vacant positions on the Constitutional Court, and of one nominee for the EC.
Sen Nuntana Nuntavaropas, a vocal critic of the selection process, warned that moving forward with appointments while the legitimacy of many senators remains under investigation undermines public trust.
She referenced findings from Investigation Committee No.26, jointly formed by the EC and the Department of Special Investigation, to probe vote-rigging allegations involving 229 senators.
She argued that since these same senators will vote to appoint officials who may later oversee or adjudicate their cases, it represents a clear conflict of interest. "If approved, the new EC member will have the authority to file charges to the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Court justices will hold the power to rule on the legitimacy of the Senate appointments. Proceeding under these circumstances is fundamentally unethical."
When asked whether delaying the vote could constitute a violation of Section 157 of the Criminal Code regarding malfeasance in office, Sen Nuntana responded that legal scholars have already clarified that postponement is within the Senate's rights.
She likened it to a defendant selecting the judge in their own trial. "Once cleared, senators can vote without casting doubt on the legitimacy of the process," she added.
She further argued that if no replacements are confirmed, current officeholders in independent agencies can remain in their roles temporarily. "Waiting won't harm the process, but rushing could damage the credibility of these institutions."
Sen Pisit Apiwatthanaphong, however, insisted delays could result in independent bodies being unable to form quorums, thereby stalling critical legal proceedings. He warned that failing to act might also put senators at risk of violating Section 157.
He acknowledged public concern but pointed out that under the Constitution, the Senate is empowered to perform this duty. "Criticism is inevitable, but as long as we act within our constitutional bounds, our responsibility is clear," Sen Pisit said.
When asked about proposals to delay the vote for eight months to allow court proceedings to conclude, Sen Pisit replied that such a move could leave bodies like the EC, Administrative Court, or Constitutional Court unable to function effectively. "We have to fulfil our constitutional role and ensure that justice continues without interruption."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bangkok Post
10 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
Senate panel backs amnesty for ‘reckless, impulsive' youth
A Senate committee is backing an amnesty for young people who may have committed political offences out of recklessness or impulsiveness according to a spokesman. The Senate Committee on Political Development, Public Participation, Human Rights, Liberties and Consumer Protection convened on Tuesday to review four amnesty bills, three of which are also before a House committee. The House on July 16 passed three amnesty bills out of the five under consideration during first reading. The three bills that passed came from the United Thai Nation, Khru Thai and Bhumjaithai parties. The bills that did not pass were proposed by the People's Party and a civil society group backed by 36,723 signatories. The Senate committee, however, invited all five sponsors to give more details about their bills. Four showed up but Bhumjaithai was not represented, said Senator Pornchai Wiriyalert, the committee spokesman. He said the committee aimed to assess whether the bills could lead to national reconciliation after two decades of political conflict, while also addressing growing public criticism. Sen Pornchai said the four amnesty bills can be categorised into two types. The first type clearly specifies which offences would be covered by the amnesty. This approach allows for swift adoption, as those found guilty under the defined offences would automatically receive amnesty once the laws are passed. However, it is viewed by many as potentially unjust, as it could be seen as favouring one side over the other. The second type does not pre-define offences but instead proposes a review committee to evaluate individual cases. While this allows for more thorough and case-by-case consideration, it may result in lengthy deliberations, he said. Sen Pornchai said some bills propose granting an amnesty for serious criminal offences, such as terrorism, treason (Section 113 of the Criminal Code), illegal arms possession (Section 114), or arson, while excluding those charged under Section 112 (the lese-majeste law), which carries penalties of three to 15 years in prison. He added many of these Section 112 cases involve non-violent online activities, such as posting or sharing content on Facebook, with some offenders receiving prison terms exceeding 20 years. The committee said that if Section 112 offences were politically motivated rather than intended to cause unrest, they should be eligible for an amnesty. As the proposed bills include the formation of committees to evaluate cases, the Senate committee also urged that these bodies be inclusive and not dominated by any single political side.
Bangkok Post
a day ago
- Bangkok Post
'Professor' case goes to Supreme Court
The case involving Senator Keskamol Pleansamai has been transferred to the Supreme Court following an Election Commission (EC) ruling that she attempted to mislead voters during her election campaign by falsely labelling herself as a professor. The EC on Tuesday released the 13-page ruling and unanimously agreed to file a petition with the Supreme Court to revoke her right to run and vote in elections. The case originated from a formal complaint about Dr Keskamol's academic qualifications and was supported by six key pieces of evidence, including her application for candidacy and text messages she sent to a Line group. In one such message, she introduced herself as "Professor Dr Keskamol Pleansamai," presenting herself as a specialist in mental health and aesthetic dermatology. The complaint raised concerns about the accuracy of her claimed credentials and whether such representations influenced voters' decisions. Upon investigation, the EC found that although Dr Keskamol is a licensed physician with over a decade of experience and holds a medical degree from Rangsit University, her claim to the title "Professor" and a doctoral degree in political science from "California University" in the United States lacked verification. However, no evidence supporting these claims was found in official Thai government records or academic databases. Thai authorities, including the Office of the Civil Service Commission (OCSC), found no record of her holding such a professorship or having her doctoral degree recognised officially. Dr Keskamol argued that she earned the degree and professorship from California University, which she claimed is accredited by the US Department of Education, adding that she completed the programme over three years. The EC concluded that introducing herself as "Professor Dr" misled voters and gave her an unfair advantage, violating Sections 62 and 77 of the Organic Act on the Acquisition of Senators. Several witnesses testified that her self-presentation influenced their perception of her credibility and suitability. While the EC dismissed allegations regarding her other foreign degrees due to insufficient evidence, it ruled that the false use of the title "Professor" constituted election fraud.
Bangkok Post
2 days ago
- Bangkok Post
Senate won't wait for scandal verdicts
The Senate yesterday overwhelmingly rejected a motion to delay approvals for Constitutional Court and Election Commission (EC) nominees and vowed to proceed with the crucial votes today. The 130-7 vote against a motion to postpone approval of nominees for key positions in two independent agencies saw 13 abstentions. The vote came despite potential conflicts of interest involving sitting senators who are facing legal charges for alleged collusion in last year's Senate election. The charges are being laid against them primarily by the EC, one of whose members could be selected by the Senate. Nevertheless, the Senate yesterday blocked an urgent motion to delay the selection and approval of the Constitutional Court and EC. The motion cited an ongoing legal case related to the alleged poll collusion involving at least two-thirds of sitting senators. Following a two-hour closed-door meeting, the Senate voted to reject the motion. The Senate will proceed today with its scheduled agenda that includes approval of two nominees for vacant positions on the Constitutional Court, and of one nominee for the EC. Sen Nuntana Nuntavaropas, a vocal critic of the selection process, warned that moving forward with appointments while the legitimacy of many senators remains under investigation undermines public trust. She referenced findings from Investigation Committee No.26, jointly formed by the EC and the Department of Special Investigation, to probe vote-rigging allegations involving 229 senators. She argued that since these same senators will vote to appoint officials who may later oversee or adjudicate their cases, it represents a clear conflict of interest. "If approved, the new EC member will have the authority to file charges to the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Court justices will hold the power to rule on the legitimacy of the Senate appointments. Proceeding under these circumstances is fundamentally unethical." When asked whether delaying the vote could constitute a violation of Section 157 of the Criminal Code regarding malfeasance in office, Sen Nuntana responded that legal scholars have already clarified that postponement is within the Senate's rights. She likened it to a defendant selecting the judge in their own trial. "Once cleared, senators can vote without casting doubt on the legitimacy of the process," she added. She further argued that if no replacements are confirmed, current officeholders in independent agencies can remain in their roles temporarily. "Waiting won't harm the process, but rushing could damage the credibility of these institutions." Sen Pisit Apiwatthanaphong, however, insisted delays could result in independent bodies being unable to form quorums, thereby stalling critical legal proceedings. He warned that failing to act might also put senators at risk of violating Section 157. He acknowledged public concern but pointed out that under the Constitution, the Senate is empowered to perform this duty. "Criticism is inevitable, but as long as we act within our constitutional bounds, our responsibility is clear," Sen Pisit said. When asked about proposals to delay the vote for eight months to allow court proceedings to conclude, Sen Pisit replied that such a move could leave bodies like the EC, Administrative Court, or Constitutional Court unable to function effectively. "We have to fulfil our constitutional role and ensure that justice continues without interruption."
