If General Prayut really wants to return as head of a post-election government, at the least he is guaranteed strong support from the 250-member Senate, which is to be appointed by the ruling junta – the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).

Judging from the current Constitution, which came into effect in April 2017, the Upper House is designed to serve as a helping hand for a pro-NCPO government and a big obstacle to one that is anti-NCPO.

The first Senate under the new charter, which will serve a five-year term, will be entirely appointed by the junta. Although 50 out of the 250 members will be voted in by fellow applicants and nominees, they need to get their final approval from the NCPO. The junta will select the final 50 from a list of 200 candidates who get the highest number of votes from fellow applicants and nominees. People who want to become senators can apply directly to be voted by fellow applicants to get the first 100 candidates. Eligible organisations can also nominate their candidates to be voted on by fellow nominees, to get another 100 candidates.

Also, transitory provisions of the Constitution give the first Senate extra powers that certainly favour the NCPO while also making it hard for its rivals.

These include the power to vote along with the 500-member House of Representatives to select a prime minister in the event that the Lower House is unable to reach an accord over the matter.

For the first five years, the Senate also is empowered to jointly deliberate with the House of Representatives on any bills deemed to be related to national reform. And the Senate has the power to veto, at joint meetings of the two Houses, any bill on amnesty.

If a pro-junta political party forms the government after the election, the Upper House is likely to provide strong support during its rule. But if anti-junta parties win the election and gain political power, the Senate could become a stumbling block, making it difficult for that government to rule.

In the past, only MPs were allowed to vote in the selection of a prime minister. This time, if they fail to agree on who should become the new head of government, senators will be allowed to also join in the choosing. To be able to form a new government, the winner needs support from more than half of both Houses, or at least 376 parliamentarians.

Major political parties – including Pheu Thai and Democrat – have stressed that any party that could garner support from more than half of the House of Representatives, or 250 MPs, should be allowed to form the next coalition government. They said the voters’ mandate should not be distorted.

The senators are unlikely to back someone unrelated to the junta to become the next prime minister. And unlike the previous one, this Constitution does not set any deadline for the House to select a prime minister.

That means General Prayut, who heads the NCPO, could remain in his seat as the government head and have wide-ranging powers under Article 44 of the post-coup interim charter, for as long as election winners are unable to form a coalition administration.

Regarding the Senate’s power to jointly deliberate reform-related bills with the Lower House, a pro-NCPO government may interpret the Constitution in a way that their draft laws – even the budget bills – are regarded as relating to national reform. This way they could get support from the Upper House during parliamentary voting.

If he returns as prime minister, Prayut’s main concern in Parliament is likely to involve censure debates – as only the House of Representatives are involved in these and thus the Senate would not be able to offer him a helping hand.

The Senate will prove a major hurdle for a post-election government formed by anti-NCPO parties such as Pheu Thai, which some view as a proxy for former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Upper House members could seek joint deliberations for bills proposed by an anti-NCPO government on the grounds that they are related to national reform. Any disagreement over the matter would be decided by a joint committee chaired by the Senate speaker, according to the Constitution.

If they want, senators may also join forces with opposition MPs in voting down government-backed bills. And an embarrassing loss in Parliament over major legislation could result in the government being pressured to take responsibility.

Regarding the Senate’s power to veto amnesty bills, a pro-Thaksin coalition would find it more difficult to do what the Yingluck Shinawatra government did in 2013. At that time, government MPs managed to push through a law that would have offered blanket amnesty to all involved in recent political conflicts, including those facing corruption and murder charges. Parliament’s passage of the bill led to street protests, culminating in the military coup in May 2014.

The new charter states that support from two-thirds of both Houses, or at least 500 parliamentarians, is required to pass an amnesty bill.

In order to block a non-NCPO government, the junta needs to prevent either Pheu Thai or Democrat parties from winning more than half of the MP seats so that neither of them could quickly form a government without coalition partners. The junta’s goal is for Palang Pracharat Party, which is expected to nominate General Prayut as prime minister, to come second in terms of MP numbers.

If they can achieve that goal, the pro-junta party would have a better chance to form a coalition government, with support from the Democrats. Pheu Thai and Democrats have long been bitter enemies and are unlikely to work together.

It remains to be seen if the junta’s manoeuvring will result in the junta leader-cum-prime minister returning to power. But at least the senators they appoint will become a major unified force in Parliament and be able to influence politics after the election.

Pheu Thai politicians yesterday heavily criticised Sirichok Sopha, Theptai Seanapong and Chavanond Intarakomalyasut after the Democrats’ written apology posted on Sirichok’s Facebook account was removed within a couple of days being issued.

In an open letter dated October 5, the three Democrats offered their apologies to Yingluck for making sexually offensive comments against her while she was serving as prime minister in 2012. A copy of their letter was also posted on Sirichok’s Facebook page the same day. The trio in their open letter admitted that they had defamed Yingluck by making untrue comments against her. They said that they felt remorse and apologised to her.

In their letter, the trio also thanked Yingluck for offering to withdraw her libel lawsuit against them. The Supreme Court is scheduled to read its verdict on October 19 in Yingluck’s case against the three Democrats.

The Criminal Court found the trio guilty of libel and sentenced them to a year in jail and a fine of Bt50,000 each, but the imprisonment was suspended for two years, as the defendants had not been convicted. The appeals court later upheld the ruling.

Sirichok reposted the open letter in his Facebook account on Saturday following criticism over its removal. He said the open letter posted on his Facebook page on Friday was part of the trio’s deal with Yingluck, made through the lawyers of both parties.

According to the Democrat, the deal required the trio to have their apologies posted on Facebook for the public to be informed, without having to buy advertisement space in newspapers. He said the condition was already met as the mass media had widely reported about the trio’s apologies to Yingluck. Sirichok claimed that Yingluck had been informed about the removal of his Facebook post regarding the apology and that she had not protested.

In response to Sirichok’s removal of his post, Pheu Thai politicians yesterday accused him and two other Democrats of being insincere, while they praised Yingluck as being kind and forgiving.

“People in that party simply are afraid of getting jailed. They offered apologies in exchange for withdrawal of the libel case. But they were insincere by removing the post shortly afterwards,” said Korkaew Pikulthong, a Pheu Thai politician and key red-shirt figure. “PM Yingluck did not get angry at them. She is like a saint. She should not have withdrawn her case against those people,” he added. Polpoom Wipatpumiprathet, another Pheu Thai politician, praised Yingluck for forgiving the three Democrats who had defamed her. He said this was a good example of reconciliation.

He expressed his “disappointment” at Sirichok for removing the written apology so soon. “His action points to a lack of sincerity,” Polpoom added.

Chaikasem Nitisiri, a key Pheu Thai figure, pointed to “differences in the levels of virtue” between Yingluck and Sirichok.

“We can’t blame him and it’s his right to do so. People have differences in their morality,” he said.

Yingluck’s lawsuit against the Democrat trio stemmed from the three politicians’ reported using of a term in a television programme that suggested a third party was having sex with her.

During the programme, the trio were criticising Yingluck for failing to attend a parliamentary meeting and alleged she had instead met someone in a hotel room. The programme was broadcast on the satellite-based TV channel Blue Sky, which is run by certain Democrat politicians.

The NLA reasoned that if the government submits bills later, the chamber would have no time to deliberate them, Wissanu said.

The government has announced a tentative election date, saying it would be held on February 24 if everything proceeds in accordance with the election road map.

Although the new charter allows the next government to reaffirm pending bills for deliberation by the House, the NLA fears that there would be too many remaining if more bills are submitted to the chamber after December.

Sirichok Sopha, Theptai Seanapong and Chavanond Intarakomalyasut offered their apologies in an open letter dated October 5. A copy of their letter was also posted in Sirichok’s Facebook message.

They also thanked Yingluck for offering to withdraw her libel lawsuit against them.

In February 2012, the three Democrats had used a term with double meaning when talking about the prime minister during their television programme. The term suggested a third party was having sexual intercourse with her.

During the programme, the trio were criticising Yingluck for failing to attend a parliamentary meeting and alleged she had instead met someone in a hotel room. The programme was broadcast on the satellite-based TV channel Blue Sky, which is run by certain Democrat politicians.

The three Democrats were found guilty of libel and sentenced to a year in jail and a fine of Bt50,000 each. The lower court suspended the imprisonment for two years, as the defendants had not been convicted. The appeals court upheld the ruling.

The plaintiff appealed against the ruling in the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to read its verdict on October 19.

In their open letter, the three politicians said they admitted that they had defamed Yingluck by making untrue comments against her. They said that they felt remorse and apologised to her.

“Ms Yingluck Shinawatra forgave us and said she would withdraw her appeal, allowing the three of us to be free from this case. We would like to thank her and announce this news publicly,” the letter said.

Yingluck has assigned her lawyer to withdraw the appeal on Monday in the case against the three Democrats, according to a source.

Meanwhile, Chavalit Wichayasut, a politician from the rival Pheu Thai Party, said Yingluck’s forgiveness to the three Democrats was tantamount to giving them a new political life. He added that the trio would have faced a difficult political life if they had been imprisoned a few months before a general election.

“Ms Yingluck’s gift of pardon serves as a good example to help the country get out of the conflict trap,” the politician said.

Prayut made the appointment in his capacity as Isoc director.

Friday’s order said Nattapol would run Isoc on behalf of Prayut and Army Commander-in-Chief Gen Apirat Kongsompong, Isoc’s deputy chief.

The order added that Nattapol would also carry out tasks as assigned by Prayut and Apirat.

This would be the first time that the Pheu Thai leader would be chosen based on an internal poll. Prior to the voting day, the nomination process is open to all members. Pheu Thai said members were welcome to propose more than one candidate.

Candidates most likely to lead Pheu Thai in the upcoming election are former health minister Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan, former PM and Thaksin Shinawatra’s brother-in-law Somchai Wongsawat, and former Pheu Thai deputy leader Panpree Pahitthanukorn.

Pheu Thai secretary-general Phumtham Wechayachai said yesterday that there had been no conclusion yet about who would become the leader. Everyone has an equal chance to become party leader candidate if they are nominated by party members, he said.

Pheu Thai’s selection of leader has usually been criticised for being influenced by fugitive former PM Thaksin Shinawatra.

Phumtham yesterday said there was nothing the party could do about such criticism but insisted the selection followed normal regulations and took into account members’ opinions.

‘Based on merit’

“Only time will tell,” Phumtham said. “But personally, I see politicians, executives, and leaders all set their heart on leading the party to victory in the election. The decision should be made based on merit, compatibility with colleagues, and ability to deliver policies to serve public interest.”

Apart from the uncertainty over its new leader, it has been said that Pheu Thai would rely on a ‘sister party’ – Pheu Tham – to ensure a majority in Parliament.

Previously, Pheu Tham Party was viewed as a plan-B party in case Pheu Thai got dissolved ahead of the election. Pheu Thai is currently under scrutiny by the Election Commission to see if the party was under the influence of an outsider – a misconduct punishable with dissolution of the party under the new organic law.

Pheu Tham held its first meeting over the weekend and chose Sompong Amornvivat as its leader. Although the outcome did not match previous speculation that Thaksin’s brother-in-law Somchai would lead this sister-party, Sompong was still his close aide – a deputy PM when Somchai was the prime minister in 2008.

Pheu Tham is also based in Chiang Mai province, the Shinawatra hometown and political stronghold.

A new theory, however, has emerged recently that Pheu Tham, if not a substitute party, could help Pheu Thai secure more seats in Parliament.

Under the new election method, when a party such as Pheu Thai has already won in many constituencies, it is likely that it would gain fewer seats for party-list MPs.

Party-list candidates from Pheu Thai could take shelter under Pheu Tham.

Even if Pheu Tham does not win in constituencies, it would have plenty of votes to send party-list candidates to Parliament.

Politicians from both parties, however, denied this connection.

Though they admitted that both parties may exchange politicians, Pheu Thai’s secretary-general said that legally they were two separate entities.

The Pheu Tham leader, meanwhile, denied it was a substitute party for Pheu Thai. However, he welcomed Pheu Thai members to join his party.

Deputy Premier and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan said he was unaware of any factors that would cause the election, tentatively scheduled for February 24, to be put off further.

When asked if disturbances would be a factor for postponement, Prawit, who is in charge of security affairs, said risk factors mainly involved politics.

“Most people want to vote and there are no reasons to postpone the election,” he added.

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam also said the tentative election date of February 24 had remained unchanged.

“I have never heard of any postponement. Everything is still the same,” he said.

The deputy PM was told that certain politicians had voiced concern that the election could be postponed until April 28. He responded that he wondered what could cause such concern.

Wissanu, who is in charge of the government’s legal affairs, also defended the four Cabinet members who still kept their seats after becoming executive members of Palang Pracharat Party, which is expected to nominate General Prayut Chan-o-cha as its prime ministerial candidate in the next election.

However, Wissanu warned his fellow ministers to take extra caution in performing their duties, as they could commit wrongdoing if they used their positions to campaign for their party.

He also noted that the four ministers had suggested that they would step down when the time was right.

The four are Industry Minister Uttama Savanayana, Commerce Minister Sontirat Sontijirawong, Science and Technology Minister Suvit Maesincee and Prime Minister’s Office Minister Kobsak Pootrakool.

Meanwhile, Democrat Party politician Ramet Ratanachaweng on Wednesday said if the four ministers opted to remain in office now, they had to avoid taking advantage of political competitors through their government positions.

“They should make sure there is transparency and equality in the political ring. Do not use their power and duty to help their party campaign. Doing so is against good governance,” he said.

The dual role of the ministers both in the government and in Palang Pracharath, which will contest the upcoming election, has prompted concern over the competitive advantage the party may have.

Prayut insisted yesterday that would not be the case in his administration.

“The four ministers are not key decision-makers in the Cabinet. Decisions are made collectively by the whole Cabinet, which also has deputy prime ministers and a prime minister,” Prayut said.

The government would not give any particular group an advantage over the others, he said, stressing that it only worked to serve the public interest.

Following their controversial debuts, there have been calls for the four ministers to resign their ministerial posts. It would be the right thing to do, critics, say, even though the law does not require them to.

Prayut, who is also the junta chief, questioned yesterday whether the ministers were obliged by the law to relinquish their Cabinet positions and also questioned whether previous governments had done the same.

His comments came after four ministers – Industry Minister Uttama Savanayon, Commerce Minister Sontirat Sontijirawong, Minister attached to PM’s office Kobsak Pootrakul, and Science and Technology Minister Suvit Maesincee – appeared as executive members of the pro-junta Palang Pracharath Party.

Speculation is that the party has been formed specifically to support Prayut in the next election. The junta head, however, has divulged nothing about his political ambitions.

Meanwhile, Commerce Minister Sontirat, now also secretary-general of Palang Pracharath, said yesterday that Prayut had only advised those joining politics to be careful about their work.

Some observers have warned it would be inappropriate if the four ministers went on mobile Cabinet trips as these could help them gain popularity while other politicians remained under political restrictions. Sontirat said that PM Prayut had not mentioned such matters.

However, he did add that he was deliberating over whether or not to join mobile Cabinet trips.

Sontirat declined to say when he would step down from power amid pressure calling on him to do so. He said he had already made up his mind on the exact timing but asked that others respect his decision.

He did, however, admit that it was more difficult for him to keep working in his current position.

“To not work would be easier. To be in this situation and still have to work is difficult. I have to prove myself a lot,” Sontirat said.

But he was in good spirits, he said, as Prayut had made clear that the four ministers did not have to resign, even though they had taken up roles in a political party.

With the royal command, Ampon Kitti-ampon, General Chalermchai Sittisart and Air Chief Marshal Johm Rungswang will serve as advisers to the King.

The command was countersigned by Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda and published in the Royal Gazette on Tuesday, with immediate effect.

At the end of last month, Gen Chalermchai retired as commander-in-chief of the Royal Thai Army, and ACM Johm as commander-in-chief of the Royal Thai Air Force.

They both were ex-officio members of the National Council for Peace and Order.

Ampon served as secretary-general of the National Economic and Social Development Board between 2004 and 2010, and as secretary-general of the Cabinet from 2010 to 2016.

He was appointed a member of the National Legislative Assembly two months after the military coup in May 2014.

The party launched its grand opening and vision announcement after the Election Commission (EC) approved its registration application last Friday. Future Forward now has legal status as a political party. Seen by some people as an hoc party, FWP stressed that it would field candidates in all 350 constituencies and that it was here to stay for the long term.

Regarding the party’s pro-democracy stance, Thanathorn said that FWP was ready to negotiate with anyone as long as they could agree to their democratic terms.

The non-negotiable issues were opposing any attempts by the current regime to retain power, amending the Constitution and reversing the coup’s legacy. “Politics is all about negotiations. As long as they can accept this bottom line, we can talk,” Thanathorn said.

Although the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) has delayed the election several times, the FWP leader said that he believed the election would take place early next year following the junta’s latest promise.

Amid excitement about voting building in the country over the past couple of months, the regime would not be able to explain another postponement of the election to the people, he said.

The party also welcomed the pro-junta Palang Pracharath Party, which launched its opening on Saturday, with members connected to the ruling regime including current incumbent ministers. The opening partly confirms speculation that General Prayut Chan-o-cha would be backed as a prime ministerial candidate in the next election.

Thanathorn said that if Prayut were interested in politics, he should be clear about it so voters could make a decision. The former automobile executive said he was ready to join a prime ministerial debate with all candidates, including Prayut who last week challenged him indirectly to a debate over the country’s future. But Thanathorn added that he would not talk to Prayut while he was head of the junta.

Party’s Secretary General Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, 3rd from left, is at a press conference with Thanathorn on Monday.

FWP secretary-general Piyabutr Saengkanokkul said he welcomed the forming of any party to offer a choice to voters.

However, like other politicians and critics, Piyabutr said every party should be treated equally. As it took FWP nearly a hundred days before the EC approved it status, Piyabutr said he was waiting to see how long it would take for Palang Pracharath to complete the same process.

Considering the competitive advantages that Palang Pracharath may have because of its connection with the ruling regime, Piyabutr said the government should not push any policies now that are bound to a future budget.

The event yesterday highlighted the party core leaders such as its spokesman Pannika Wanich, deputy leaders Ronnawit Lorlertsoonthorn, Klaikong Vaidhyakarn, along with Thanathorn and Piyabutr.

With billionaire Thanathorn as its leader, FWP has come under criticism as being another rich man’s party comparable with Thaksin Shinawatra’s Thai Rak Thai or Pheu Thai.

Thanathorn, however, gave up his role in Thai Summit Group when he got involved in politics.