POLITICIANS from the two major parties have slammed the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) move to approve an additional question in the referendum, which would open the way for the next Senate to help choose a prime minister. They say it implies that elected members of the House of Representatives would not be necessary.

“I think then we should not elect MPs, just let the appointed Senate take care of public administration,” Nipit Intrasombat, the Democrat Party deputy leader, posted on his Facebook page yesterday.

The comment came after the NLA last week approved an additional referendum question asking whether Parliament, which is made up of Upper and the Lower Houses, should jointly approve a prime minister for the five-year transitional period after the election.

The question would be asked in the referendum along with a question on whether or not voters accept the constitution draft written by the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC).

The controversy arose because under the CDC’s charter draft, all 250 members of the Upper House would be appointed by the junta’s National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO). Many deemed the clause as a means for the junta to retain power. A role for the junta-appointed Senate in choosing a PM is being seen as attempt by the junta to select the person who should take the top post in the next government.

Key Pheu Thai Party figure Chaturon Chaisang wrote on Facebook yesterday that the ambition of the “five rivers of powers” was now clear: They want an outsider prime minister since they have opened the way for the junta-appointed Senate to choose a PM.

“If it comes to this point, criticising the additional referendum question would not be able to change anything. But, it’s nice that they have now shown all the cards. It is easier for the people to decide whether to vote yes or no to the charter draft,” he wrote.

Extra question confusing: EC

Meanwhile, Somchai Srisuthi-yakorn, a member of the Election Commission (EC), said that he acknowledged the commission had no right to make changes to the question proposed by the NLA, but he was concerned that such a long and leading question would not contribute to a fair referendum.

He had addressed the issue about the NLA’s extra question on Friday and was slammed by some legislators.

However, Somchai maintained yesterday that the question was too long, leading, and contained jargon. It would be difficult for many voters to understand, he said.

“But if the EC is not allowed by law to adjust the question to make it easier to understand, I’m still happy to proceed accordingly,” he added.

Jate Siratharanont, the NLA’s whip spokesman, said that the question proposed could not be adjusted because it had already passed the timeframe set under the interim constitution.

“The question must remain as originally proposed by the NLA and we will not revise it anymore. And the reason why it has to be long and contain some difficult words is that we want it to be complete,” he explained.

However, he also said that the NLA would work to explain the essence of the question to voters so that they could understand it.

Regarding the EC’s concern that the question was leading, Jate said it was a mere perspective of the EC, insisting that the NLA was not trying to convince voters to vote in any particular way. Plus, the NLA had already inclusively collected opinions from its members and subpanels as well as the National Reform Steering Assembly and crafted the question after. So it should not be a problem or affect the constitution draft, he said.

Taweesak Sutkawatin, another NLA member, also said that the question resolved by legislators was now final. The NLA had already carefully debated it before making the decision, he said.