CRITICS YESTERDAY pointed out that the Constitutional Court ruling on Wednesday would make it easy for a non-MP to become prime minister for up to eight years after the next general election.

The ruling allows senators, who will be selected, to waive the list of prime ministerial candidates submitted by political parties.

Sukhum Nualsakul, a former rector of Ramkhamhaeng University, said it is obvious that an outsider can rule the country, though he admitted that many might find this acceptable as recent polls have shown most Thais are satisfied with General Prayut Chan-o-cha’s work as premier.

Meanwhile, former justice minister Chaikasem Nitisiri from the Pheu Thai Party yesterday questioned the ruling, saying it was not in line with the spirit of the August 7 referendum in which most voters had agreed to let senators join MPs in the selection of a PM.

Chaikasem, who served in the previous Pheu Thai-led government, said the additional question in the referendum did not say anything about senators being allowed to waive the list of PM candidates from political parties.

“Judging from its ruling, the court seems to have made this judgement on behalf of those who in fact may not agree with the court,” he said.

Chaikasem said he believes the court ruling would help a non-MP to become premier for two terms, adding that the two key political parties – namely Pheu Thai and Democrat – were unlikely to agree on a common PM candidate or form a coalition government together.

So, it is highly likely that the political parties’ list of PM candidates will be waived, he said, adding that political parties with good ties to the military or smaller parties would have a better chance of forming the next government, with support from the selected senators.

Prajak Kongkirati, a political lecturer from Thammasat University, said that empowering the junta-appointed Senate to help select a PM would most likely create a political vacuum.

Prajak reckoned that allowing handpicked senators and elected MPs to jointly waive the list of PM candidates drawn up by political parties would create a dead-end if the two sides disagreed.

“They are from different sources, so confrontations and pressures can take place, especially if big parties can influence the Parliament,” he explained.

“When it comes to a dead-end, it is possible that a special measure will be introduced. One should remember that the [interim charter’s] Article 44 will still remain in force, though I think it would be wiser for the junta to adopt measures that are not as absolute,” he added.

Seri Suwanpanon, chairman of the National Reform Steering Assembly’s political reform committee, however, said that different opinions from the two sides could still be solved through negotiations on the sidelines.

His view is that the court’s ruling does not alter the essence of the fact that elected MPs still have the power to help select a PM.

“The court only followed the referendum question more strictly, in that the entire Parliament should join in the process. The ruling is final and must be respected,” he said.

Democrat Party legal team leader Wirat Kanlayasiri said the court’s ruling alone did not increase the possibility for an outsider PM to be put in place.

“Public approval of the question has already suggested such a possibility,” he said. “Besides, the [500] MPs can jointly vote to object to the Senate’s decision to waive the list if they do not want a premier from an outside source.”

He also agreed with the court’s ruling that the stipulation should exist for the five-year transitional period. He also said that if the ruling only applies to the first Parliament, as written by the charter drafters, then it would only last for a short time as the Parliament can be dissolved at any time.

Somsak, a key figure in the party and a former education minister, said he accepted the court’s verdict yesterday.

Public prosecutors last year filed the case, asking the court to seize the ex-party list MP’s property, which he had failed to declare when he was a minister.

The house was built in 1998 in his hometown in Angthong province.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission ruled against him by a majority vote in response to his assets declaration as a political-office holder last year, before public prosecutors proceeded with the case.

Meanwhile, the National Legislative Assembly voted to deliberate impeachment cases concerning two former MPs from the Pheu Thai Party on October 6.

The ex-MPs, including key Pheu Thai figure Udomdej Ratanasathien, are accused of abusing their positions for reporting to Parliament instead of fellow party members, and for swapping the amended 2007 Charter concerning the change in the origins of senators that was submitted to the then Parliament speaker.

The NLA refused to consider Udomdej’s request to include additional documents as part of its deliberation, saying the issue was not complicated enough to warrant additional evidence.

In a statement, the party cited Prayut‘s remarks in relation to Boonsong Teriyapirom, who served as commerce minister in the Pheu Thai-led administration.

The comments cited in the statement quoted Prayut as saying that Boonsong “should wait until he leaves jail” and that he should “finish his case before suing me”. Prayut had made the comments in reaction to the former minister’s threat to sue him.

The party claimed that by exercising absolute power under the interim charter’s Article 44 to exempt relevant authorities from dealing with the legal cases, Prayut introduced changes to the “ordinary legal process”.

In his capacity as head of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), Prayut is empowered by the interim charter to issue orders for the benefit of national reforms with powers over the administrative, legislative and judicial branches.

Pheu Thai said Prayut‘s remark could affect the ongoing case against Boonsong, who is facing an administrative order seeking civil liabilities stemming from the corruption-plagued rice-pledging scheme.

“The NCPO chief seems to be predicting that Boonsong will be sent to jail. This interferes with the judicial process. Judges must be allowed to work independently. It is improper for the NCPO chief to influence the justice process,” the statement said.

Meanwhile, NCPO spokesman Colonel Piyapong Klinphan dismissed Pheu Thai’s claims, saying no moves were being made to influence the justice system.

“The justice system is functioning fine with courts and relevant state agencies. The NCPO chief is part of the administration and he is doing his work to the best of his ability, without any moves to influence the justice system,” Piyapong said.

The spokesman also rejected a claim from critics that the post-coup government was persecuting certain politicians and treating them unfairly.

In a related development, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said yesterday that he did not think those required to pay civil damages in connection to the rice-pledging scheme would be sent to jail if they failed to find enough funds to pay.

He said those people would be given a specific period of time to cover their civil liabilities, such as 10 years, and if they did not have any assets for the payment, then they would be declared bankrupt. However, he said, it does not mean that they would be imprisoned.

“This is not a criminal offence,” he said.

The Paiboon-led ACOC has so far not received any complaints or queries from any individual or agency in relation to these contracts worth a combined Bt155 million.

However, the Auditor-General and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) have investigated the allegations and learned that Prathompol Chan-o-cha had set up his company’s office inside the compound of the Third-Region Army.

“All investigating agencies work independently. I can’t meddle in their affairs. I also don’t want the ACOC to become a meddling centre,” the minister said.

According to the ACOC’s official website, the centre is mandated to facilitate, regulate, inspect and evaluate anti-graft performances of governmental officials and related agencies. It is also authorised to appoint, order or suspend officials whose actions are against the law, the Cabinet’s resolutions or PM’s orders.

Established under the PM’s order in 2014, the ACOC works under the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC), which subsequently comes under the Justice Ministry.

It consists of six officials under the Justice Ministry, one from the Treasury, one from the Foreign Ministry, five from independent agencies, three from PM-supervised agencies, one from the Army, and two from anti-corruption foundations.

One of its underling foundations, the Anti-Corruption Organisation of Thailand (ACT), however, issued a statement urging Prayut to ensure that any irregularities related to a family of his younger brother General Preecha Chan-o-cha must be investigated quickly, freely and transparently.

Earlier, Isra News Agency reported that Prathompol’s company, which is located in the Third Region Army in Phitsanulok, won at least 11 state construction projects.

Deputy PM Wissanu Krea-ngam noted yesterday that a civil servant’s residence can be lawfully registered as a company. However, he refused to say whether such an action is appropriate.

Pongphan, Preecha’s wife, also stirred controversy when photographs of her inappropriate activities were circulated on the Net, including those of her opening a dyke named after her and her riding an Air Force plane to the dyke-opening ceremony.

In a related development, Paiboon said that he ordered PACC secretary-general Prayong Preeyachit to gather details of over 850 cases related to the rice-pledging scheme launched by former PM Yingluck Shinawatra government.

His order follows the Cabinet’s resolutions that the ACOC will be responsible for more than 850 cases related to the rice-pledging scheme.

The PACC will discuss the case with the Treasury and the Commerce Ministry and then set up a war room to work on the case, he said.

Members of the previous government’s National Rice Policy Committee may also face investigation over alleged wrongdoing by the NACC, Wissanu said.

They were speaking at a seminar held yesterday by the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) to gauge views in relation to organic laws on political parties and MP election. Representatives of concerned agencies were invited to participate, though no official representatives from major parties such as the Democrat andPheu Thai showed up.

Members of minor parties called on the Election Commission to be fair in its role in providing campaign materials for candidates, so all parties have equal opportunities. The EC has to quickly reduce the disparity between big and small parties, they said.

Nikorn Chamnong, director of Chart Thai Pattana Party, suggested that the legislators revise the clause that says political parties should submit details of their proposed policies to the EC for further dissemination. He explained that if EC officials were not experts, they could affect the policies proposed by the parties.

The veteran politician added that the clause on dissolving political parties that act against the constitutional monarchy should be more specific.

In response to EC’s notion that it is trying to help parties campaign, Nikorn said there was no clause indicating that it was to do so. The provision of campaign material, he said, would actually limit the parties’ campaigns.

Before the seminar, CDC chairperson Meechai Ruchupan said that he would listen to all opinions aired at the forum.

The Criminal Court, meanwhile, sentenced two demonstrators to three and half years in jail for joining a protest led by United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) in 2009. They were charged with unlawful assembly and invading state property.

In a press conference in September 2011, Chawanon accused Surapong of having a hand in removing members of the Cambodia-Thailand Joint Border Committee for Cambodia’s benefit.

The Criminal Court found Chawanon guilty of defamation and sentenced him to two years in jail and a fine of Bt100,000 before suspending the jail term as he did not have any criminal records.

However, the Appeal Court overturned the first court’s verdict, saying Chawanon did not confirm that the plaintiff had caused any damage to the country, but just questioned his actions for the sake of transparency.

Meanwhile, the court sentenced two UDD protesters for allegedly invading the Interior Ministry’s compound during the red-shirt protest in April 2009 in order to stop then-PM Abhisit Vejjajiva from implementing the emergency decree.

The court found them guilty of invading state property and assembling unlawfully to incite unrest, even though the defendants claimed they had no such intentions. However, since there were no witnesses to confirm their guilt, the court reduced the jail sentence from three and a half years to two years and four months.

The duo were taken to Remand Prison, with one awaiting temporary release on bail.