Only debate can solve political turmoil: senate speaker

Senate Speaker Prasopsook Boondech talks to The Nation's Kornchanok Raksaseri and Sathien Viriyapanpongsa about the credibility of the Upper House.

Is it true the Senate is divided between appointed and elected senators?

The Senate is like an advisory council of Parliament, so we don't need to all have the same opinions. However, it is not so divided that it prevents both groups of senators from doing things together.

It is possible that both groups have different attitudes and mindsets. Appointed senators are mostly former government officials and many of them are retired - they may have some common ways of thinking, while the elected senators come from other occupations.

Are you confident of the Senate's credibility?

I am confident that we are neutral. If we are under a political party's influence, how can the country survive? In the past senators were supported by political parties, but the new laws now prohibit senators being related to political parties.

What about the criticism that appointed senators somehow feel overshadowed or linked to the coup-makers?

If that were the case, I wouldn't be here. I don't know anyone among the coup-makers. Many senators were not involved with the Council for National Security. When we join the Senate we have to represent all Thai people, not just a particular group.

Can Thai democracy be effective when we have appointed and elected senators?

The combination allows experienced, knowledgeable and neutral people to join the Senate.

Members of the Upper House in several democratic countries are all appointed. The United Kingdom has the House of Lords, in which some members inherit their position. There are other things involved in democracy apart from elections. The Senate is there to balance the government while its members are experienced and knowledgeable.

What has gone wrong with our system to lead to street protests?

Two sides have confronted each other outside Parliament and refuse to listen to others. If they did, we could end the problems in Parliament. This would include the House of Representatives, not just the Senate. The House should be able to end the problems. The Senate takes part in the joint meetings. I believe people can depend on us.

How can the parliamentary mechanism solve our current political problems?

Debate in Parliament should ease the problems outside. People will then see that we, the Legislative Branch, understand their problems and the government must answer for what it is doing and plans to do to solve such problems. People should be more hopeful then.

Do you think the checks-and-balances system works the way it should?

To some extent. The Justice Branch is independent. But the Legislative and Administrative Branches are connected somehow. The government and the opposition must work together to solve problems.

Do you think four months after it declared its policies is an appropriate time to scrutinise the government?

It is time we asked the government what it is doing. Problems, especially economic problems, can't wait. It would be good for both Houses to join the meeting. But I'm not sure the government will agree.

How do you react to criticism that the Senate's move to scrutinise the government is in line with the People's Alliance for Democracy's anti-government rally?

The problem is whether the people want us to scrutinise, to ask the government questions, or whether they want us to stay still and do nothing.

You once said we should wait for at least a year before making any changes to the 2007 Constitution Do you still think that?

The 2007 Constitution is a very good charter. It protects people's rights. We spent lots of money on the drafting and the referendum. What is so urgent that we must change the charter immediately?

Appointing a committee to carefully study the problems from using this charter before changing anything is a good solution. If the results indicate it has some flaws, we should fix those flaws.