An early general election has become more likely after Parliament voted on Friday (September 10) to approve a charter amendment bill that restores the two-ballot election system and alters the House of Representatives composition – changes expected to benefit larger parties in the next national vote.

However, the bill may need to clear another hurdle before being implemented. Parliamentarians can ask the Constitutional Court whether the amendment or subsequent rewriting of the relevant organic law violates the charter.

The amendment bill, proposed by the coalition Democrat Party, seeks to revive the two-ballot election system used under the 1997 Constitution and to change the number of constituency MPs and party-list MPs in the 500-member Lower House to 400 and 100, respectively.

At the previous general election in 2019 – the first held under the current post-coup Constitution of 2017 – each voter cast a single ballot for both 350 constituency MPs and 150 party-list MPs.

Tough requirements met

Despite stringent vote requirements designed to protect against amendments, the draft managed to sail through a joint session of the Senate and Lower House – with 472 votes for and 33 against. Abstentions totaled 187.

The vote result met all the requirements set by the charter, namely majority support from both Houses, with a minimum 20 percent of opposition MPs, and at least one-third of senators. That was mainly thanks to strong support from the two largest political parties, Palang Pracharath, and Pheu Thai, as well as most senators, who were appointed by the current powers-that-be when they led the post-coup junta.

This was the first of 20 amendment bills proposed over the past two years of this Parliament’s existence to clear all the three parliamentary readings. Most of the other 19 were shot down after failing to gain backing from one-third of the Senate.

The bill will be submitted for Royal endorsement in the next 20 days. Support from at least 10 per cent of Parliament is required to seek a Constitutional Court ruling on whether the amendment breaches the charter.

To accommodate the dual-ballot method, the organic law on elections will need to be rewritten. The rewrite is expected in November when Parliament reconvenes.

However, some observers said the final amendment is unlawful because it exceeds the terms of the original motion. Lawyer Pirapan Saenpan last week complained to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, accusing the scrutinizing committee of malfeasance for revising the original motion.

Legal dispute ahead

Despite gaining Parliament’s approval, the charter amendment could still be halted by legal hurdles before being implemented.

Yuthaporn Issarachai, a political scientist at Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, said it could face a review by the Constitution Court after being promulgated. He pointed to a conflict between the amendment bill and Article 93 of the Constitution, which enshrines the complex method for calculating party-list MPs based on the current single-ballot and mixed-member apportionment (MMA) system.

He noted that while the amendment bill adopts two ballots, the single-ballot method of allocating MP seats to contesting political parties has been left intact.

And Yuthaporn mentioned another potential barrier. If the House is dissolved before the new election law is enacted, a legal question may arise over whether one or two ballots should be used in the subsequent general election.

The House panel scrutinizing the bill initially added a transitional clause authorizing the Election Commission to issue regulations for a new election in case the organic bill was not completed in time. But the panel removed the clause following criticism that it offered the EC a “blank cheque”.

“We have to keep our fingers crossed that House dissolution won’t be called before the law takes effect,” said Yuthaporn.

Winners and losers

The dual-ballot system is expected to benefit larger parties, especially the main opposition Pheu Thai and the ruling Palang Pracharath, while leaving small and medium-sized parties at a disadvantage.

Pheu Thai’s deputy leader Yuttapong Charasathien said he was confident the return of the two-ballot system would see his party win more than 200 seats out of the 500 up for grabs in the next election. “And we will gain the legitimacy to form a new government,” he added.

One question is why has the ruling party supported a change that is expected to benefit Pheu Thai the most.

Pheu Thai, which is recognized as the proxy party of self-exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, has won all previous elections held with two ballots.

Yuthaporn said Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and his brothers in arms — Deputy Premier Prawit Wongsuwan and Interior Minister Gen Anupong Paochinda, forming the “3Ps” group of former Army chiefs — may think they will still benefit from other provisions in the Constitution.

He pointed out that the political structure remains largely unchanged and the junta-appointed Senate still enjoys the power to select the next prime minister.

“Even if it wins the next election, Pheu Thai won’t be able to form the government. On the contrary, Palang Pracharath has a better chance of returning to power even if it comes second in the election,” said the academic.

Palang Pracharath’s reason for backing the old two-ballot system may be to diminish small and medium parties – especially Move Forward, which came third in its 2019 electoral debut under the current election system, he added.

House dissolution

Yuthaporn reckoned that after the organic law passes, the House will likely be dissolved and a new election called. He reasoned that Prayut, with his legitimacy increasingly being questioned and street protests rising, has realized that restoring the economy post-COVID will take a long time.

Meanwhile, some critics warn that the two-ballot system could bring a return to “parliamentary dictatorship”, where the House of Representatives is dominated by MPs from a few large parties.

Unlike the single-ballot system, in which “every vote counts”, the dual-ballot system is a winner-takes-all method where votes for losing candidates count for nothing. As a result, it threatens small parties with annihilation.

Source: Thai Public Broadcasting Service

By tladmin

You missed

Once known as a “financial wizard”, Indian-born Rakesh Saxena now faces decades in jail for a Thai banking scandal that triggered the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Following a legal battle that dragged on for 26 years, the Supreme Court on September 12 finally sentenced Saxena to 335 years in jail over three lawsuits stemming from the Bangkok Bank of Commerce (BBC) embezzlement scandal. Although the jail sentence of over three centuries was upheld, the 70-year-old will serve only 20 years behind bars, the maximum term under the Thai Penal Code. Working his way up the ladder From 1974 to 1985, Saxena worked as a foreign exchange dealer and money market broker in India, Singapore, Hong Kong, and London. He later moved to Thailand to work as a newspaper financial columnist and consultant to financial institutions. In 1989, while living in Bangkok, he met and befriended Krirkkiat Jalichandra, who had just been appointed as the BBC’s senior vice-president. In 1992, Saxena became a personal advisor to Krirkkiat, who had since been promoted to BBC president. The bank at that time was owned by the family of Krirkkiat’s mother. In his book “BBC Truth”, Krirkkiat wrote that his maternal grandfather, the late former prime minister MR Kukrit Pramoj, had told him: “You have to help with Granddad’s work at the bank.” Krirkkiat had earlier worked at the Bank of Thailand for over a decade. How the scandal unfolded Between 1993 and 1994, the bank spent over 36 billion baht on business takeovers and leveraged buyouts linked with Saxena. The BBC also granted loans with insufficient or overpriced collateral to companies controlled by Saxena, senior bank executives including Krirkkiat, and their associates – many of whom were politicians. The BBC scandal was linked to a clique of young politicians known as the “Group of 16”, many of whom went on to become political heavyweights. Regulators estimated the bank’s bad loans at over 50 billion baht or roughly 40 percent of its assets. Saxena claimed years later that in 1995, BBC officials concealed the number of non-performing loans by lending money to bank-owned shell companies so they could repay debts owed by other borrowers. After the scheme was uncovered, the central bank in February 1996 ordered Krirkkiat to not renew Saxena’s consulting contract. A bank’s collapse Just a month later, the Bank of Thailand took control of the BBC. During a censure debate in early May 1996, opposition MPs from the Democrat Party accused unnamed government politicians of colluding with Saxena and Krirkkiat to “embezzle at least 50 billion baht from the bank’s deposits”. The accusation, coupled with reports of the bank’s deteriorating condition, led to a run on BBC deposits of more than 30 billion baht. That prompted a takeover by the Finance Ministry, which allowed the bank to go bust in August 1998 after discovering an unmanageable level of insolvency. Krirkkiat, Saxena and several others faced 17 court cases on charges of embezzlement and fraud causing damage of over 50 billion baht. The disgraced BBC president was sentenced to 20 years in jail and fined 3.1 billion baht. Krirkkiat died in October 2012 while still serving his prison sentence. Fallout for the economy The BBC scandal led to the closure of a Thai bank that had been operating for over 50 years. Its collapse undermined confidence in the Thai financial system, leading to a domino effect that toppled 56 financial institutions and saw many Thai commercial banks taken over by foreign investors. In July 1997, the Thai government gave in to speculative pressure against the baht and devalued the currency. The move forced neighboring countries to follow suit with their currencies, triggering a financial crisis that swept across Asia. Long legal battle In June 1996, Saxena was in Canada when Thai authorities charged him and others in connection with the BBC scandal. He was arrested a month later but resisted extradition from Canada, claiming he would be killed if he was sent back to Thailand. The extradition battle began in June 1997. More than a decade later, in October 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Saxena and he was turned over to Thai authorities. In Thailand, Saxena waged a three-decade legal battle that came to an end this month with a final Supreme Court ruling that sealed his fate. Source: Thai Public Broadcasting Service