THE extra question to be asked in the charter referendum – suggested by the National Reform Steering Assembly – “gets right to the point”, National Legislative Assembly president Pornpetch Wichitcholchai said yesterday.

“This question is correct … There is only one issue [to be asked]. You cannot ask other questions,” he said.

The NLA voted last week to propose an additional referendum question on whether the public agrees that selected senators should be allowed to vote for the next prime minister for the five-year transitional period following the next general election.

Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) chairman Meechai Ruchupan said it was not known yet if the CDC would have to amend the charter draft’s provisional chapters or permanent chapters if the additional question were added and the charter was voted in. If the public votes to pass the charter, the 2014 interim charter stipulates that an amendment can be made to it within 30 days.

Meechai urged the NLA to think carefully about the question.

NRSA member Wanchai Sonsiri dismissed the reasons given by Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva for opposing the move to ask voters if they agree to allow appointed senators to vote for the PM.

Wanchai said the aim was not to blunt the power of MPs, who were elected by the people. “It is a move to join hands in restoring the country during the transition period because if we let only MPs select the PM, there could be conflicts like happened in the past,” he said.

“The move is not to pave the way for PM Prayut Chan-o-cha to become the next PM because he has already announced he would not take up the post,” he said.

NRSA member Seri Suwanpanont insisted that the NLA had not been ordered by anyone to propose the question. “We only want mechanisms to prevent conflicts, as we believe the charter lacks a mechanism to prevent political crises,” he said.

In response to the proposal to allow appointed senators to vote for the next PM, former Democrat Party leader Chuan Leekpai said he supported elections and upholding democratic principles.

“Regardless of having elections or appointments, both systems can provide good and bad people. Do not be afraid of elections. We have come so far. We tripped but that is OK. But do not step back,” he said.

Chuan lauded the CDC for using the anti-graft push to highlight the charter draft’s strengths. “It is a good strategy to make voters accept the charter. Anyone that opposes this draft means they approve of corruption,” he said.

“Actually, the charter draft was not written to directly suppress corruption. The charter draft was written to have effective balance mechanisms among agencies.

“Do not focus too much on the charter as the deciding factor. The charter is just a tool to run the country. Elections are the heart of democracy.”

Banjerd Singkaneti, dean of law at the National Institute Development Administration, said the charter draft had strong enough anti-corruption measures and other mechanisms to keep a government in check over its financial and monetary discipline.

“The draft provides hope for the people. At least people are given the mandate to decide how they want the country to move forward,” he said.

AN Unelected but powerful Senate, if included in the charter as suggested by the government, would be a decisive factor in convincing people to reject the constitution draft in the referendum, observers said yesterday.

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha said earlier that the charter should give power to senators to balance the executive branch for five years during the “transition period”.

His statement supported the idea of Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan, who said senators should be selected for a five-year term to ensure the success of national reform and national strategies.

Prayut backed Prawit’s proposal, saying: “Many countries do it this way. General Prawit has the same idea as me.”

Such comments from the country’s two top executives have led to the conclusion that during the transition period the Senate would be vested with special powers, giving it a major role in balancing the power of the next elected government.

There would be no need for a special body such as the National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation Commission (NSRRC), which was recommended by the now-defunct Constitution Drafting Committee led by Borwornsak Uwanno. Political observers believe that the powerful special body was the reason the Borwornsak charter draft was rejected.

Democrat Party deputy leader Ongart Klampaiboon said the idea of having an unelected Senate for five years was obsolete and out of date.

In practice, he said, it allowed the junta to pick its own people to control the next government.

“The Constitution Drafting Commission [CDC] should think about the fate of the nation in the long run, rather than just temporarily or in the transition period,” Ongart said.

“If the constitution contained such a nonsensical element, there would be a slim chance of it passing the referendum.”

Academic Jade Donavanik, dean of Durakit Bandit University’s Faculty of Law, said the Senate as a legislative body should have linkages to the people. Although direct elections might not be necessary, people should have some role in selecting senators, he said.

“The selection system as initially suggested by the CDC is fine as it has some elements of public participation, but handpicking senators by the National Council for Peace and Order [NCPO] is undemocratic,” he said.

Former foreign minister Noppadon Pattama from the Pheu Thai Party said people should have the right to choose their senators in accordance with democratic norms.

There was no guarantee the junta’s handpicked senators would represent the people or work for the public interest, he added.

There would also be no guarantee that they were good and capable senators, he said, adding “there would be further political division since people might not accept such a Senate”.

It seems certain that the new Senate will have 200 members, but it is not yet clear what exactly their role will be. The latest suggestions have been to empower the Senate to select the prime minister, to initiate a no-confidence debate in Parliament, and to ensure the success of reform and national strategies.

If the Senate is invested with these powers, political observers believed it would be a powerful “third force” in Parliament alongside the governing and opposition MPs. It would be like a large party that balances the power of Pheu Thai and the Democrats, critics said.

The Senate would play a significant role in charting the country’s political direction, observers added.

Looking from another perspective, this formula for the Senate to “balance the power” of the government could be seen by opponents as an attempt by the junta to cling to power.

Supporters of this “formula”, however, believe the plan would work only if Prayutdecides to accept the role as prime minister in the future because he has popular support.

If a military general who does not have public support is selected as prime minister, the formula could lead to a situation similar to the Black May crisis in 1992 when pro-democracy demonstrators rallied to bring down General Suchinda Kraprayoon’s government.

CDC spokesman Udom Ratamarit said the drafters had at present neither rejected nor accepted the government’s idea regarding such a powerful unelected senate.

He added that the commission needed time to think the matter over carefully and the CDC’s current idea regarding an indirectly elected Senate was still being considered.

“I insist that we retain our freedom to discuss all proposals; nobody could dictate the charter writing,” Udom said.