Winner takes all: The high-stakes battle for control of Thailand’s Senate

The ruling coalition’s two largest parties – Pheu Thai and Bhumjaithai – appear to be locked in a battle for control of the Senate, whose wide-ranging powers include the approval of appointees to the Constitutional Court and other independent agencies.

The balance of power currently leans heavily towards Bhumjaithai, which is believed to command the loyalty of around 140 of the 200 senators.

Analysts say former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the driving force behind the ruling party, is racing against time to wrest control of the Senate from Bhumjaithai.

Several commissioners of independent agencies are set to retire this year, granting the Upper House power to approve their replacements.

The Senate also holds influence over constitutional amendments, which require support from at least one-third of all senators to pass.

Control of the Senate

Olarn Thinbangtieo, a political science lecturer at Burapha University, said attempts to control the Upper House were apparent even before last year’s senatorial election.

All major parties plotted to get their allied candidates elected, but Bhumjaithai appeared to be the most successful.

“Bhumjaithai has suddenly become very powerful. The coalition’s second-largest party is now as powerful as its leader, Pheu Thai, thanks to support from numerous senators,” Olarn said.

“Thaksin will not allow this to continue and is seeking a bigger share of the cake.” The analyst explained that Thaksin commanded “total control” of the Senate while in power from 2001 to 2006.

A clear sign of how much had changed came recently when “blue” senators aligned with Bhumjaithai staged a walkout in Parliament, blocking the passage of constitutional amendments, he said.

Sharing the cake

Olarn believes the power struggle between Pheu Thai and Bhumjaithai centres on negotiations “to share the cake”.

He said Thailand’s conservative elite are satisfied with the current makeup of the Senate, which has demonstrated unity and loyalty to the monarchy.

He cited the opposition of many senators to constitutional amendments that would allow a complete charter rewrite, hinting at a possible conspiracy within the Upper House.

“I believe the senators have something up their sleeve,” he said.

Olarn pointed out that the same senators have aggressively countered an investigation into allegations of vote-rigging that threatens to void last year’s Senate election result.

During the six rounds of voting between June and July, more than 48,000 candidates voted among themselves to produce the final 200 winners.

In early February, however, unsuccessful senatorial candidates lodged a complaint of conspiracy and vote-buying with the Department of Special Investigation (DSI).

The DSI probe revealed a sophisticated, large-scale operation involving thousands of candidates that helped secure 138 seats in the Senate for pre-selected individuals with political connections.

It also found that financial incentives were offered in exchange for votes.

Early this month, the DSI’s board for special cases resolved to allow the agency to investigate the money-laundering allegations against the 138 senators.

A total of 81 senators hit back by petitioning the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to probe whether the DSI and Justice Minister Tawee Sodsong, who oversees the agency, overstepped their legal authority in launching the investigation.

Scare tactic?

Olarn agrees with the senators’ argument that the Election Commission (EC) should be allowed to handle the vote fraud allegations first, with the DSI potentially following up by investigating the money-laundering claims, when requested by the EC.

He said widespread public suspicion over the Senate election results did not justify a DSI investigation, as the agency falls under the Justice Ministry and its involvement could be seen as government interference in the legislature.

“As it turns out, certain politicians are using the DSI as a weapon to bargain with the blue senators. They may be using this [money-laundering] case to scare senators into switching their allegiance to Pheu Thai.”

Thanaporn Sriyakul, director of the Institute of Political and Policy Analysis, estimates that about 30 of the blue senators are in Bhumjaithai’s “inner circle” while the rest have looser ties to the party’s political network. The latter group could be targeted by Pheu Thai, he said.

Fight or flight

Olarn believes the DSI’s money-laundering investigation will drag on, leaving the process open to possible political interference.

The probe is expected to take at least a year as the DSI has about 3,000 witnesses to question.

The lengthy investigation could be exploited to persuade certain senators to switch sides, or to pressure Bhumjaithai into giving up a slice of the cake in the form of appointees to key independent organisations.

The analyst said Bhumjaithai now faces a choice: fight or flight.

It may end up having to back down to Pheu Thai when new commissioners come up for appointment later this year.

Last year, several members of key independent agencies retired or completed their terms, including three NACC commissioners, two Constitutional Court judges, and six State Audit Commission members.

This year, four of the six Election Commission (EC) members will complete their seven-year tenure, including EC chairman Ittiporn Boonpracong.

The EC chief and one other will retire in August while the remaining two will step down in December.

Olarn said Bhumjaithai may instead choose to fight if it senses backing from the conservative elite, who are looking for ways to “stop Thaksin”.

The analyst pointed out that the actions of “blue senators” – especially their moves to defend the current charter – were satisfying for the conservatives.

Senators’ many powers

The current Senate enjoys a wide range of powers. Its members can vote on constitutional amendments and other legislative bills, approve nominations to independent agencies, and scrutinise the government’s performance through interpellations and non-voting general debates.

Any bill to amend the Constitution requires support from at least one-third of the Senate, or 67 senators, to pass its first reading. It also needs a simple majority from both Houses combined, or at least 351 “yes” votes from the 500 MPs and 200 senators in its first and final readings.

The current charter empowers the Senate to approve appointees of various independent agencies and organisations before they receive final endorsement from the King.

These include election commissioners, members of the NACC, Supreme Administrative Court judges, Constitutional Court judges, National Human Rights Commission members, the attorney-general and the Council of State’s secretary-general.