The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) has dismissed calls to simplify the second question on the Aug 7 constitution referendum, saying it still thinks the wording is the most suitable and that it is too late to change.

Jetn Sirathranont, a spokesman for the NLA whips, was responding on Saturday to comments by election commissioner Somchai Srisuthiyakorn who said the question was too long and contained jargon that laymen might not understand.

An English translation of the question approved by the NLA, which is responsible for writing it, is as follows: "In order to ensure continuity in the implementation of national reform under the national strategy during the five-year transition period, do you agree that a joint sitting of parliament should be allowed to vote to select a prime minister and that this should be included in a provisional clause [of the draft charter]?"

Mr Somchai commented on Friday this was a leading question and suggested there was no need to provide voters with the rationale when asking it.

Dr Jetn disagreed, saying the NLA had thought the issue through and was convinced people would understand.

"From now on, we will proactively explain it to people," he said. "Besides, there's nothing we can do about it as the time has already run out under the 2014 interim charter, which requires us to send the question to the Election Commission in 10 days."

Ruling out any change to the question, he said it had to be printed verbatim on ballots.

"The reason it is long is that we need to make it complete and cover everything we intend to ask. A simpler version might not do," Dr Jetn explained.

As for the comment that it was a leading question, the NLA whip said that was Mr Somchai's opinion.

"We do not intend to mislead and the question was carefully screened by lawyers and several of our committees. We based it on the question suggested by the National Reform Steering Assembly and brainstormed ideas from our panels. In the end, we all agreed it was the appropriate question to ask.

"We believe the extra question would not cause the draft charter to be rejected because the content was different."

Critics of the government say the question is intended to seek endorsement of a continuation of a quasi-military administration. Essentially, voters are being asked to allow the Senate, which will be fully appointed by the current military junta, to "help" select a prime minister, who may or may not be an elected MP.

Taweesak Suthakavatin, another NLA member, said any resolution made by the NLA could not be changed and on this particular issue, members had considered it carefully.

"Having senators vote on a prime minister during the transition period to serve as a check is a new thing so it's natural that the idea is facing resistance," he said.

"There's no hidden agenda to extend power and a prime minister must still come from the three-candidate list each party submits."

Wallop Tangkananurak, another NLA member, said it was now the NLA's duty to make sure people understand. A public-relations plan is expected to be developed after the Songkran holiday.

"I propose that in all pamphlets or online ads, a short headline in simple, easy-to-understand language must be used for public relations purposes," he said. "Initially, I suggest that we say: 'Do you agree to let MPs and senators jointly vote on a prime minister?' "

The NLA voted 152-0 with 15 abstentions on Thursday to approve the question. It has since come under fire for both the complexity of the language and the rationale behind it, given that all senators will be appointed by the junta.

Critics say even though the question is all about the extra power of senators, the word "senators" is not even in the question. The term "joint sitting of Parliament", which few people understand, is used instead.

They also point out to the consequences of a "yes" vote on the question considering the first batch of 250 senators after the election will be handpicked by the junta. Since a prime minister is chosen by a majority vote of two chambers (500 MPs and 250 senators), a party would need at least 376 votes to have its candidate as prime minister, a very unlikely scenario considering Pheu Thai won with 265 of 500 seats in the 2011 election.

As a result, there is likely to be no party with a majority vote and a coalition government will probably be the norm, paving the way for an outsider prime minister.

Rosana Tosittrakul, a former reform council member, also urged the NLA and NRSA members to show their sincerity by announcing now that they would take a break for two years, like required of constitution writers, and would not accept Senate seats once the charter takes effect to show they have no hidden agenda in proposing the question.

Gothom Arya, a former election commissioner, also pointed out a "yes" vote to this question would allow the junta to effectively rule the country for at least 11 years from the 2014 coup, provided the election is on course to take place in 2017.

He said that since the transition period would be five years, the senators would be able to choose at least two prime ministers, who would govern for a total of eight years, based on a standard four-year term.

Source:
courtesy of BANGKOK POST

by Aekarach Sattaburuth

If you have any stories or news that you would like to share with the global online community, please feel free to share it with us by contacting us directly at [email protected]