Seat selections see political ethics hit nadir

The country's political ethics reached a new low after the Election Commission (EC) and the military government chose, respectively, to award MP and Senate seats to people who may not be qualified.

Last week, the EC, through the use of a dubious formula, decided to bestow party list seats upon 12 small parties even though they failed to reach the expected vote tally required to earn one.

These so-called "MPs elected by generosity" have pledged to support the pro-military Palang Pracharath Party which will nominate Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha for prime minister.

Under the mixed member proportional representation system, the lower house will comprise 350 constituency and 150 party-list MPs. In principle, the party list seats are distributed to parties based on the proportion of their popular vote, which should approximate to one seat per 71,000 votes.

But the EC, despite ethical checks before it was sworn in, has made the controversial decision to allocate seats to these small parties, one of which earned only 33,748 votes.

Many voters see this move as unethical because it nullifies a large number of votes. The Future Forward Party is the major loser after it was stripped of seven party-list seats, equivalent to over 600,000 votes, that were distributed to the small parties.

The Pheu Thai Party, the real poll winner with its politicians dominant in the constituencies, now risks losing a leading role in the lower house as the small parties are expected to side with the PPRP and Gen Prayut. Cut-throat negotiations are afoot, with rumours suggesting that "Grade A" ministerial seats are being offered to mid-size parties such as Bhumjaithai and the Democrats to tempt them into the alliance.

It's disheartening that the formation of such a coalition does not reflect the will of voters, especially with all the power bargaining taking place behind closed doors.

Another disappointment is the secret selection of the 250-strong Senate. There are widespread rumours the positions will be given to ex-NLA members and those who served on panels appointed by Gen Prayut.

Although, for now, it is just speculation, many believe that seats will go to 15 cabinet ministers who tendered resignation letters to the government last week -- just a few days before the selection process was completed and sent to the palace.

We know the identities of a few of the picks already after some candidates boasted of their selection to the prestigious higher chamber on social media. But we are still in the dark about the whole list.

One of them, a doctor, said he was sad to abandon his state job but his new position as a senator will also give him a chance to "help society". Some other candidates made similar claims -- that accepting a Senate position is ethical as they can make a contribution to the country.

Some on the expected list are old faces who served military regimes after the 2006 and 2014 coups. Needless to say, the position comes with a high salary and other benefits.

They claim to represent the people without having stood in the election. This is one of the puzzles of Thai politics. Why are so many people happy to accept appointed seats? Don't they realise that this is not democratic? Not to mention unethical.

If you're raised in Thailand or live in a country long enough, you will know how people love to parade their ethics. It's a well-worn subject in schools and workplaces. Thai-style ethics focus on individual good, without embracing universal values like equality or rights of participation.

I've noticed, too, that people can often be somewhat selective with their ethics. Standards that are adhered to in the home or in the workplace are thrown to one side when it comes to politics.

This may explain the peculiarity of Thai democracy, which holds "good people" in high regard but ignores the rule of law.

The regime's top brass have often cited ethics while governing the country, but gone out of their way to suppress people who held different opinions. Similarly, those MPs and senators who obtain seats by the generosity of the military government, and trumpeted their desire to work for the good of society, are actually reaping the rewards of authoritarianism in the form of power and privilege.

This is our national problem. Our ethics seem to exclude universal values like equality, justice and rights of participation. With the absence of a system of checks and balances, political ethics have fallen by the wayside.

But this might not be their lowest point. Indeed, there may be ugly scenes when this military-appointed higher chamber takes office, especially if its actions are perceived as compromising the rule of law.

It's now just a question of how long this government can last given the accumulation of people's frustration and disappointment.