Talk:Senate of Thailand

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jiraz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Senate 2000-2006 : SNTV?

Do I read the 1997 Constitution of Thailand correctly (s. 122-123) if I say:

The 2000 and 2006 direct elections for the Senate of Thailand were conducted by SNTV : 200 seats distributed (according to population) over 76 electoral districts (= changwat) with each voter one vote for one candidate.--Bancki (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There has been a coup in Thailand

Currently there is no Senate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.0.3.124 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Senate of Thailand 2024

The division of colors by political party is only a political analysis. Because the numbers mentioned may be uncertain or inaccurate. And another thing is that senators must not be members of any political party. Preime TH (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Division of the 2024 Senate

@Preime TH: There have already been some analysis of the voting blocs in the Senate. [1] So I'd say it's pretty much obvious for those who follow the news. Horus (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I argue that the spirit of the Constitution requires that the Senate be independent of political parties. The analysis of academics should not be taken as the guiding point. Preime TH (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

They are not really "nonpartisan" and I believe it would be more beneficial to labelling de facto composition. --Horus (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No, maybe the numbers are not as exact as the MPs. The de facto division of colors is purely analytical. Preime TH (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You must also take the spirit of the Constitution into consideration. If you want to divide the colors, you have to divide them according to professional groups or it is best to use gray according to the spirit of the constitution. Preime TH (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The same goes for the 250 senators appointed by the military government. Although there are divisions Between Prayut Chan-o-cha and Prawit Wongsuwon, but it was changed to black to be consistent with the fact that all members were appointed and independent from political parties. Preime TH (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The split between Prayut or Pravit camps means little when come to the votes (as evident in many unanimous results). While the 2024 chamber already shown camps like factions or blocs. Although I concede that the blocs are not evidently defined now, I'm pretty certain the split will only grow larger. --Horus (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why readers would be interested in "source" (separated by profession group or province or whatever) more than their likely voting intention (i.e. voting blocs). The EU parliament also have voting blocs and labelled as such. See 2024 European Parliament election --Horus (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not the same at all. European elections clearly establish alliances In the various alliances there are also political parties in each country. This is different from the election of senators in Thailand which is chosen from a professional group. without forming an alliance Preime TH (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, how about Senate of Canada? They also established parliamentary groups and not a formal alliance or political party. --Horus (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but Canada officially establishes the group even though it is not registered. Like political groups that run in local elections in Thailand. It is not an academic's analysis. Preime TH (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

But the context is similar to the National Council of Slovenia, but there are 20 Thai professional groups and each group has the same number. Preime TH (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not an academic's analysis. The numbers came from the vote on the President. Three names were put forward (coincidence?). One have already named themselves. Another two were described by the media. It's basically an open secret so to say.

As for the need to create a diagram for 20 professions, go ahead. I think putting two diagrams together does not hurt.

By professions:

(...)

By voting blocs:

(...)

--Horus (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Otherwise, we can put on a diagram with some 10-20 people labelled as "New Breed Senators" and the rest as independent. Since you conceded to the Canadian example. --Horus (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

nonsense The intent of the Thai Senate according to the constitution is to be independent from politics. You can't use context anywhere else. Preime TH (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It's no surprise that I don't like editing the Thai Wikipedia. English Wikipedia is free to write or edit articles. (As long as it's authentic, encyclopedic, and reasonable.) But Thai Wikipedia isn't bad. But I feel like it's a bit strict. Especially system auditors who have quite a lot of issues. Then take your own thoughts into consideration. Preime TH (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

What context? Are you following Thai politics? The new chamber is not independent from politics like at all. See for yourself [2]. I've never seen Wikipedia bend to the self-description of any authorities. One of the obvious example is North Korea which had "democratic" in its name but is described as "a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship." --Horus (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm Thai. I understand the Thai political context well. But I think the new generation of senators or blue I think that's just a partial opinion. It doesn't make any sense. Yes, I understand that there are now new and blue senators. But you also have to look at the spirit of the Constitution. Therefore, you must not have a big ego. I think I'm good at being alone. Preime TH (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to include a review or fact, please do so outside the infobox. Preime TH (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Panam2014 Hello, I would like some advice from you, namely according to the constitution. Thai senators must not be or belong to a political party. But some users argued that senators are not independent of political parties. As a Thai person, I accept that it is not free. But this is Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia). Writing or editing must be in accordance with the law or the constitution. The context in each country is different. Preime TH (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Preime TH: we could add a footnote to explain that they are elected as member of such party, like President of Poland or President of Romania. Panam2014 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Panam2014 No. The Thai Constitution stipulates that senators must not be members of any political party on the day they run for election. If you have been a minister or mayor, you must take a gap of 5 years. Preime TH (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If you accuse me of being egoistic, how about you are an ignorant? So if you have nothing against the two diagram compromise, I think I will go ahead with the inclusion. Just find a reasonable objection and point it out. I'm not starting another quarrel here. --Horus (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)--Horus (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue of the color group of senators should be included only on the 2024 Thai Senate election page as a criticism. Because otherwise, correcting people may be considered Vandalism. Preime TH (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The information box should contain only de jure information. See, for example, the Indonesian Regional Representative Council. I think politics has also been dominated and divided into color groups. But in the information box, it is classified as only 1 group that is non-partisan in order to be consistent with the constitution. Preime TH (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, see the Canadian example. De facto factions are real and could be put in the article dude. --Horus (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

P.S. You know what is really vandalism? 3 revert rules. --Horus (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm begging you, please stop changing back. Please see the context as well. Stop being so crazy about politics, friends. Preime TH (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You cannot use Canada's case as an excuse. Because he announced that he would openly form a group. It's different from Thailand's which is not clearly disclosed. Preime TH (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not touch the first diagram. What is your excuse for such petty and vindictive reverts? --Horus (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Preime TH: @Horus: Hi Preime TH, I believe you contacted me through my user page. While I'm not an expert in Thai constitution and laws (I'm more interested in Thai history), I believe that the dispute here is about whether or not the seat diagram should show the de facto political factions in the Senate. Preime wants to follow the Thai Constitution, which stated that all Senate members are nonpartisan. On the other hand, Horus wants to show the de facto political division in the Thai Senate.

Technically, I kinda prefer to show the de jure information. For example (as stated by Preime above), the Indonesian Senate (the Regional Representative Council) is nonpartisan, and its members are thus diagrammed as nonpartisan in the infobox (even though some members of the Indonesian Senate may have ties to certain political parties). Then again, the Indonesian Senate is mostly powerless. I think, de facto political division (as preferred by Horus) could only be shown if those political divisions are backed by reliable sources. RyanW1995 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@RyanW1995 I understand, but the numbers Horus quoted may be inaccurate and uncertain. In the era when Thailand had under a Senate appointed by the military government, there was a division between Prayut's side, Prawit's side, and those who did not favor any side. But for the same reason, the numbers may be inaccurate or uncertain. together with the intent of the constitution that wants the Senate to be independent from political parties and perform its duty as a check on politicians (if not counting the power to select independent organizations The Thai Senate is considered to have almost no political power at all, except for 250 senators who have just left office.) Preime TH (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@RyanW1995: FYI Overwhelming sources point to factionalism and political ties in the Senate. No impartial observers could deny that. [3] [4] [5] [6] --Horus (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Having also been asked to comment on this issue, I don't believe the voting blocs diagram should be shown, particularly as it appears to have been based on a single vote (for the president of the Senate). It would be appropriate to discuss any apparent blocs in the aftermath section of 2024 Thai Senate election, although only if sources were consistent (this one used to source the diagram and this one mentioned above don't seem to align). I also note the diagram does not match the source (putting 153 in the Blue senator group despite 159 voting for Surasat).

Also, a reminder about WP:BRD and WP:3RR, the former not being respected and the latter being broken by two of you. Any further edit warring on the article will result in blocks being handed out. Number 57 15:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The diagram on voting of the President are the only significant vote so far, with sources grouping factions by the nominated candidates. This voting pattern may change in the future, but political diagrams already need update every time when people switch parties or allegiance, so I see no need to wait until they will not switch in the future. --Horus (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The actual vote (sourced by Thansettakij) is a more concrete evidence that analysis before the vote (sourced by Matichon), so the former is used to show factions. --Horus (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Horus No, the information you present is distorted. Yes, I accept that most of the senators are supported by the Bhumjaithai Party. But according to the constitution, they cannot be members of political parties. You were once a true administrator of Wikipedia. But you altered it in a distorted way. The numbers you present are only the votes of the Senate President. If you still confirm that your color division is correct. It may cause misunderstandings, especially by foreigners. And another thing is that it goes against the spirit of the 2017 Constitution, which requires the Senate to be independent from political parties. Preime TH (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The main issues with assigning numbers to blocs (from what I can see) are that (a) sources are not consistent when it comes to numbers and (b) how people vote for the speaker of the Senate does not (to my mind) define bloc membership. MPs do not always vote with their party, so a one-off vote cannot be used to assign bloc membership IMO. Number 57 17:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Then how about an estimation of the blocs before the votes that give Blue 140, New Breed 30, and others 30? This could be found in multiple sources: Bangkok Post, Thaiger, Matichon, BBC Thai. As I said, this is less concrete than when it really came down to the votes, but it would address your input regarding consistency. I have no problem with either numbers though. --Horus (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources use words like "approximately", "about", "believed to comprise more than" when referring to the number of Senators in each bloc, so I don't think it is appropriate to produce a diagram that has an exact number. I would again suggest this is best left to the prose to describe given the lack of exactness; using a diagram with exact numbers would be misleading and wrong IMO. Number 57 01:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, so what will qualify turning the numbers into diagram? Will one source do, or how many? So that in the future there will be an understanding on how to thread forward. In the meantime, can I put a footnote next to the 200 nonpartisan numbers as a reasonable compromise? There should not be any problems against it. --Horus (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

TBH I think the only thing that would be acceptable for this would be an official listing on the Senate website, and this isn't going to happen. Simply, I don't think there is a need for a parliamentary diagram for the Thai Senate given its formal non-partisan nature and the lack of clarity over exact numbers of different blocs. I also don't see any need for a footnote given the lack of formality of the blocs. Mentioning it in the text and giving ranges to the numbers should be sufficient. Number 57 20:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This section is now outdated

@Preime TH: After the 2024 Thai Senate election, this section of the article is now outdated.

The 250-person Senate is composed of 194 members selected by the ruling junta. Fifty senators represent ten professional and forty social groups: bureaucrats, teachers, judges, farmers, and private companies. A shortlist of 200 were proposed to the NCPO which made the final selection of fifty. The remaining six Senate positions are reserved for the supreme commander of the Armed Forces, the defence permanent secretary, the national police chief, and the heads of the army, navy, and air force, who are all senators ex officio. As of 2020, 104 out of the 250 senators are police or military officers.

— "Senate of Thailand § Composition", "Senate of Thailand" Wikipedia article as of 25 July 2024 15:05 UTC

RyanW1995 (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)