Government Spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd said yesterday he could not comment on the Bt20.9-million bill, after a document released on Friday detailed a breakdown of costs of the trip.

It is very rare for the Secretariat of the Prime Minister to release details of costs of an official trip on its website, and Sansern said he was not in a position to speak on behalf of the deputy premier, who is also defence minister.

The government agency sometimes announces the standard price of an auction bid for its procurement but it was unusual to announce such thing after the contract was signed.The document released on Friday shows the charter flight was hired for Thursday until yesterday. As it was a government trip, national carrier Thai Airways International was the sole choice.

“Please ask the Defence Ministry’s spokesperson [about the trip],” Sansern told reporters. “I don’t know the details of the trip since I have no experience in travelling for such a programme abroad.”

Of the Bt20.9 million budget, Bt3.8 million was for the cost of the aircraft, Bt10.7 million was for fuel, Bt600,000 was for food and drinks, Bt2.6 million was for ground operations and Bt3.1 million was spent on management costs.

The division of foreign affairs at the Secretariat of the Prime Minister is the agency responsible for the trip, the document revealed.

US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter invited defence ministers from Asean for the “informal” meeting in Hawaii to discuss regional security matters.

Sansern said usually the host country would arrange a budget to cover the cost of the heads of delegation and a few other officials, “but we have to take care of the rest and I don’t know about that part”.

An official at the Defence Ministry said there were 38 officials on the trip with Prawit and the expense for each of Bt500,000 for the four-day trip was reasonable.

Defence Ministry spokesman Colonel Khongcheep Tantrawanich unveiled the outcome of the Hawaii meeting but did not mention anything about the cost of the trip.

The US praised Thailand for its effort to curb human trafficking and illegal fishing, he said. The meeting mostly focused on US and Asean cooperation on countering terrorists and transnational crime, plus problems in the South China Sea, he said.

 

Somchai Srisutthiyakorn spoke in response to Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam’s remark that PMPrayut Chan-o-cha could resort to his sweeping powers under Article 44 of the post-coup interim charter to dissolve the next Parliament if the House could not reach an agreement on the next premier.

Under the new charter, the Lower House is allowed to select the PM from the party lists. But if it fails to do so, the appointed Senate would join the Lower House in choosing the PM.

However, Wissanu told reporters on Friday that if the House could not select the PM, a House dissolution could be an option.

But Somchai said: “Dissolving Parliament would lead to rearranging a new election which costs over Bt3 billion each time. And I have no idea if we would get the next premier after the re-election.”

He said the dissolution could be done legally, but the cost incurred in doing that must be taken into consideration by all sides.

Wissanu yesterday denied he had said Prayut could dissolve Parliament, claiming he had been misinterpreted by the media.

He believes the next election will be successful and dignified without a political deadlock.

Wissanu said he had not suggested the PM could exercise Article 44 to dissolve Parliament, as it could not be used that way.

“What I really meant was that if the House failed many times to select the PM, it must ultimately turn to people, which would mean the dissolution of the House,” the Deputy PM said.

He said that could be done via a royal decree, not Article 44. The government, he added, did not need Article 44 to stay in power as it could stay on if the House failed to select the PM and set up the new government.

Wissanu said his remark was in response to journalists repeatedly asking him what could be done if the House could not agree on the PM for months. “Do not assume [that there would be a deadlock] and blame [the junta] for using Article 44 to dissolve Parliament,” he said.

Wissanu also remarked that if the re-election were necessary, it had to be done regardless of the cost.

Almost 84 per cent of the respondents said the government’s dealing with political cases using Article 44 of the interim charter was a major cause of pressure directed at the administration, according to results of the latest survey by Suan Dusit Poll.

More than 82 per cent of those surveyed said the major cause was the economic problems from higher cost of living.

Some 71 per cent of the respondents pointed to the criticisms and attacks directed against the government, followed by the preparation for the next election (66.2 per cent), and the severe flooding in many areas of the country (60 per cent).

The survey was conducted by Suan Dusit University on 1,154 people in all regions of the country between Sept 26 and 30.

The new NLA members are expected to be from the Army, Navy and Air Force, as well as the Defence Ministry’s Office of the Permanent Secretary and the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters.

They include those who are active in the Armed Forces or who retired at the end of last month.

Among those expected to be appointed to the NLA are retired Armed Forces deputy supreme commander General Vichian Sirisoomthorn, Defence Ministry’s deputy permanent secretary Admiral Pongthep Noothep, Fourth Army Area commander General Piyawat Nakwanich, Air Force assistant commander-in-chief ACM Chaiyapruk Didyasarin, and Chief of the Air Staff ACM Surasak Toongtong.

In an amendment to the post-coup interim charter, the number of NLA members was increased from 220 at present to 250.

Despite the passing of laws and introduction of regulations aimed at combating graft, observers were sceptical that they would work in reality.

At a symposium on the country’s democracy held at Rangsit University yesterday, Veera Somkwamkid, secretary general of Anti-Corruption People’s Network, said he felt the country’s anti-corruption agency was discriminatory.

He said that while cases involving the current regime were mostly dismissed, the National Anti-Corruption Commission dealt harshly with its political opponents.

Although the draft constitution which passed a referendum last month was dubbed “the anti-graft manifesto”, Veera said there still had been no serious investigation into conflict-of-interest allegations involving prime minister Prayut Chan-o-cha’s brother.

General Preecha Chan-o-cha, who recently retired as permanent secretary of the Defence Ministry, was alleged to have appointed his son to a post in the Army despite not having a relevant degree. The general’s other son was recently criticised after winning Army construction deals worth more than Bt100 million.

Veera said he had lodged a petition with the commission to investigate Preecha’s order to appoint his son as a military officer, but the anti-graft agency rejected the case without asking him to testify.

The political observer said that such a practice made it difficult for the public to have faith in the regime’s pledge to combat corruption.

The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), which took power two years ago, promised to eradicate corruption before returning power to the people next year.

The latest constitution draft that the junta sponsored laid out many rules to prevent corrupt politicians from entering politics as well as harsh measures against graft in the government sector.

However, the regime has also met with criticism for allegedly being involved with corruption. Besides the Preecha allegations, the army was rocked by the Rajabhakti Park scandals in which high-ranking military officers were said to have received commission fees from the park’s construction deal.

Meanwhile, Sangsit Piriyarangsan, dean of the Rangsit University’s Social Innovation College, said at the same symposium that the latest constitution draft could not combat corruption as claimed by the drafters. The scholar said the charter still left room for financiers to monopolise political power. It was the same as the 1997 and 2007 charters, which although admired for following democratic principles, did little to curb corruption, Sangsit said.

Thailand’s two major parties hold distinctly different ideologies, making cooperation improbable, former constitution writer Komsan Phokong said at a symposium held at Rangsit University.

He said if the Democrat Party opted for such an alternative, it could risk losing some supporters who disliked former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. As a result, the party could find itself in trouble during an election, the analyst said.

Thaksin, having lived in self-exile overseas for many years, is believed to have maintained influence over Pheu Thai.

Komsan’s observation came after Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam on Friday commented that Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has the power to dissolve Parliament if the two Houses fail to select a new PM after the next general election.

Wissanu said to avoid such a situation, the MPs and the Senate must reach an agreement as soon as possible. Last week, the Constitutional Court ruled that during a five-year transitional period the Senate could join the MPs in calling for the suspension of political parties’ lists of candidates for PM. In the constitution draft that passed a referendum in August, the Senate was also eligible to vote to approve a PM along with the MPs.

Critics said the condition paved the way for a non-elected prime minister who could rule up to eight years. Some were concerned that it would create tension in Parliament, making selection of a premier difficult.

Former Pheu Thai MP Samart Kaewmeechai said on Friday that any government formed on such a premise would be weak and unstable.

He said Pheu Thai was hopeful of winning more seats than other parties in the House, but also acknowledged it was not possible to win a majority and form a government. Samart said if other parties wished to keep out an outsider, they could discuss and join forces to form a government.

The Pheu Thai politician added that if the Democrat Party favoured democracy and wished to see a people’s representative take the top job, the two parties could discuss the matter and form a government. Samart said he was not sure whether the Democrats were currently unified.

Former Democrat MP Watchara Petchthong, however, said yesterday that he believed the Democrats under Abhisit Vejjajiva’s leadership would not accept such a deal. He also accused Pheu Thai of being a corrupt party.

Watchara said the party highly favoured democracy and was united in supporting ex-PM Abhisit to be the next prime minister.

Officially called the Central Court for Corruption and Misconduct, it is part of the Criminal Court. The court is located in Bangkok’s Dusit district.

Lawsuits may be filed directly with the court or other lower courts. The Criminal Court also accepts corruption lawsuits.

But for offences that take place in Bangkok and the five surrounding provinces – Samut Prakan, Samut Sakhon, Nakhon Pathom, Nonthaburi and Pathum Thani, cases must be filed with the Central Corruption Court only.

Plaintiffs may be individuals or state agencies. Suebpong said hearings could also be done through a video-conferencing system for cases filed with courts in the provinces, with case judges participating at the Central Corruption Court.

Cases already filed with other lower courts will continue to be tried in those courts until verdicts are issued, he said.

GENERAL PRAYUT Chan-o-cha has the power to dissolve Parliament if parliamentarians fail to select a new prime minister after the next general election, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said yesterday.

As head of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), PM Prayut still retains his wide-ranging powers under Article 44 of the post-coup interim charter until the next Cabinet is formed, he explained.

The deputy premier dismissed concerns that the process to select a new prime minister could drag on for months if elected MPs and selected senators could not agree on the next government head.

“I can assure you that there will be no deadlock. The existing power can be exercised to solve such a problem,” he stressed.

Wissanu added, however, that Parliament’s dissolution would be a last resort to be adopted only after both the House of Representatives and the Senate had spent too much time trying to choose a new PM.

He said it would be best if parliamentarians could reach an agreement quickly in selecting a new government head.

However, if the selection process dragged on for five or six months, the public should accept there was a problem and acknowledge the need for dissolution by Prayut, he added.

“They [parliamentarians] have to choose the new PM as soon as possible. It is best to achieve that in the first round,” Wissanu said.

The Constitutional Court ruled on Wednesday that senators are eligible to seek a waiver of PM candidate lists submitted by political parties.

There has been concern that the Senate could be a pawn in deterring a successful PM selection and prolong the tenure of the current coup-installed government.

Independent political academic Trakoon Meechai said he viewed Wissanu’s suggestion of a possible Parliament dissolution as a warning for political blocs to reach an agreement as soon as possible on the next prime minister.

“The government may want to tell political parties that they need to settle things down when the time comes. Otherwise their political roles will be stripped as Parliament is dissolved,” Trakoon said.

But he believes such a scenario is unlikely, arguing the parties would rather negotiate on the sidelines and try to reach an agreement instead letting their “investments to go down the drain”.

He expects more compromise between the military and the political blocs. Large parties may gain the majority of MP seats but they could not function smoothly without the support of junta-appointed senators.

Ramkhamhaeng University former rector Sukhum Nualsakul said a special high-level meeting as stipulated in Article 5 of a new constitution could come in handy to solve a deadlock.

“But it should be remembered that Article 44 will still remain in place,” Sukhum said. “This government has so many choices,” he added.

Meanwhile, questions have also arisen over whether the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the amendment of the draft charter was irrelevant with regard to the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC).

Constitutional Court judge Charan Phakdhithanakul yesterday said the judgement was within the remit given by the interim charter of 2014, which said the court should oversee whether the amendment was in line with the August referendum result.

The ruling, he said, was not a response to the CDC’s request, but to the interim constitution.

The first recommendation given to the CDC involved adjusting the wording to allow the Senate to have a role in choosing a prime minister during the first five years after the next Parliament took office.

Charan said that such wording matched the referendum’s extra question, which also gave a timeframe of five years.

The second point that the court ruled should be amended was that the Senate should be eligible to sign with MPs a request for a waiver of the premier-candidate lists.

The judge explained that the court had decided that if the Senate was to vote in the final stage to allow the waiver, then the two parliamentary chambers should decide together from the beginning.

However, only MPs could propose the PM candidates, Charan stressed.

The judge also rejected the notion that the move paved the way for an outsider prime minister.

The Constitutional Court ruled that the Senate should be included in the vote to exempt the candidate lists in order to facilitate a smoother process, he explained.

Chief constitution writer Meechai Ruchupan yesterday said he did not think the court’s ruling had gone beyond the CDC’s request, and that it was appropriate and in line with the interim charter.

The CDC will start amending the charter next week following the recommendations, he added.

CHIEF CONSTITUTION drafter Meechai Ruchupan said yesterday that he did not think a Constitutional Court ruling on Wednesday would pave the way for a non-MP prime minister to be in power for at least eight years.

Meechai said that overall, the ruling would not bring about substantial changes, although he added that he was not in a position to criticise the court’s judgement. Only the participation of the Senate in choosing a prime minister and the time frame for such an extraordinary process could be adopted, he said.

The Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) chairman confirmed that the court ruling on the amendment of the draft constitution did not permit the Senate to propose prime-ministerial candidates.

He said that in a case where the members of the House of Representatives could not agree in choosing a prime minister, support from at least two-thirds of both houses of Parliament would be needed to request a waiver of the PM lists submitted by political parties.

Consequently, PM candidates could come from inside or outside the lower House.

Meechai said he did not know whether this controversial role of the Senate would prompt further political problems. But he said he believed whoever were in the House would prioritise the national interest and follow the lead.

After a new constitution is adopted, there will not be a power vacuum, the chief drafter said.

“There will always be an exit. Although the lists could be waived, it does not mean only an outsider could take the post. They can still select one from the lists if they want,” Meechai said.

He also clarified that the court said the suspension of the PM list by agreement of the two houses of Parliament could be done any time during the first five years after the first batch of parliamentarians took office.

“Whenever a PM resigns from his post or whenever the House is dissolved, the election of a new prime minister will be conducted in a joint Parliament meeting,” he said, referring to the latest Constitutional Court’s ruling.

The chief drafter conceded that the ruling exceeded the CDC’s request sent earlier this month. However, it was still within the realm of the matter of the referendum’s additional question, though the Court had a different interpretation, he said.

Final judgement

Since the Constitutional Court is the supreme agency that could give a verdict on the matter, it was the final judgement, Meechai added.

The CDC will revise the charter, using the same wording as suggested by the court, he said.

But if time allows, Meechai said the CDC might arrange a meeting with the court. Some members of the CDC felt that the court went beyond the request, and they would like to submit an inquiry to the court for clarification of its ruling.

Meanwhile, National Legislative Assembly vice chairman Surachai Liengboonlertchai yesterday said he did not think the court ruling would make it easy for an “outsider” to become prime minister.

Rather, he said it would have the opposite effect, and suggested that MPs and senators would have to work together closely and discuss the matter.

Surachai, formerly a deputy Speaker of the Senate, called on all parties involved to accept the court ruling and move on.

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said yesterday that it was possible a new constitution revised with recommendations based on the court’s ruling would allow an outsider to become prime minister for as long as eight years.

“That is possible if that person is tolerant and tough enough,” he said, adding that the person also would need to gain support from at least half of the parliamentarians from both Houses combined.