In a dramatic turn of events, the Senate chamber reverberated with cries of indignation from minority senators, who decried what they termed a blatant “seat grab” engineered through skewed and unjust seat allocations for Senate standing committees. Senators with fewer affiliations expressed feeling sidelined by bloc voting orchestrated by their more well-connected colleagues to amass seats on 21 standing committees, which they argued should have been equitably distributed.
During a heated meeting yesterday, Senator Tewarit Maneechai, representing the media profession, implored that he and the rest of the Senate be mandated to thoroughly review and approve the selection process for members of the 21 committees. To drive his point home, he questioned why senators from the agriculture group, specifically Seranee Anilbol and Kanlaya Yaiprasan, had not been chosen to serve on the agriculture committee.
In response, Senator Sawat Thatsana, the chairman overseeing the selection process, clarified that Sen Seranee and Sen Kanlaya had been excluded from the agriculture committee simply because there were more applicants than available seats. Sawat pointed out that at least 11 committees were highly competitive, often necessitating the drawing of lots to finalize memberships, highlighting the stringent nature of the selection process.
Despite this explanation, Senator Kanlaya expressed her discontent, asserting that although the selection process adhered to regulations, it felt unjust. Kanlaya, who is ardently passionate about organic farming, was disappointed to have missed an opportunity to serve on the agriculture panel. “The only mistake here is that we are in the minority,” echoed Sen Seranee, emphasizing the challenges they face in a landscape dominated by majority rule. “So, choose whoever you want, go ahead. I’ve done my job, and that’s it. You always called a vote to decide on matters. But how on earth could we ever win?” he lamented, underscoring the frustration of feeling perpetually outvoted.
Further fueling the controversy, Senator Nantana Nantavaropas expressed her dissatisfaction even before the meeting, claiming the selection process lacked transparency. She suggested that the chairs of the 21 committees might have been pre-selected quietly before the official vote. Nantana, who had long been involved in political development, was especially perturbed after losing her spot on the political development committee to someone she deemed less qualified. “I have been working on political development for a long time, but I lost out to a pork vendor,” she remarked, her words dripping with incredulity and disappointment.
Adding to the growing chorus of dissent, Sen Nantana also accused Sen Wutthichat Kanlayanamit, the selection committee secretary, of belittling Sen Seranee. Wutthichat allegedly dismissed Seranee’s contributions by insinuating that the agriculture committee would manage just fine without him, a sentiment that struck a sore nerve among the minority senators.
As the echoes of frustration and disappointment linger in the Senate halls, it remains to be seen how these grievances will be addressed. The call for fairness and transparency in the seat allocation process is more than a plea; it is a demand for justice and equality. In such a charged atmosphere, the question lingers—will the Senate heed these cries for change, or will the status quo prevail, leaving the minority to continue their uphill battle?
As the Senate continues its deliberations, all eyes will be on how these tensions unfold, with senators on both sides counting on equitable solutions to bridge the divide and usher in a more balanced and transparent future.
Be First to Comment