ManofReason

Again you repeat that the Thai voters can't be trusted, not because they're stupid but because they're too hungry (first time I've ever heard this silliness).

I didn't say I didn't trust them. What I said was that maybe if you are relatively poor, ethics might not be the deciding factor of what swings you to vote for one party over another... and so, your solution to the problem of the government controlling the judiciary and making it one sided against opposition, being that the people will vote them out if they do that, might not work at all. And then what?

But I get it. In your book, that's all well and good, because you can call it a non independent judiciary that is the will of the people, and that makes it all ok. Everything is ok by you if you can contrive it to have been by "the will of the people". Exactly the same argument we saw following the appalling war on drugs. Hundreds of innocent lives lost, but that's ok, "the people were happy with it".

You seemed to have avoided responding to the majority of the content my last post - I wonder why that would be.

Try and spin it however you want - you support a system whereby (for whatever reason you wish to give) Thai voters cannot choose their own government. If that is the system you want then you should follow the British example of their upper house - unelected politicians are just advisers and are to hold no powers.

I'm sure if they actually had a case against Yingluck that could stand even the slightest amount of independent scrutiny details would have leaked. This is another ridiculous attempt at a judicial coup which will again fail. In fact it's so obvious that another coup wont be tolerated that I would not be surprised if the court actually abandons its frivilous plans and acquits the pretty lady, much the same way they rejected the Democrats bid to have the Feb 2 election tossed out. Suthep has gone all in on the verdict going his way - when it doesn't the jig is up for him. 13 - 15 of March is to be victory day for the constitution, the rule of law, Ms Yingluck, truth, justice and the American way.

<deleted> has this got to do with the 'American way'?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

hyperbole

Yingluck's quiet and restrained approach to dealing with Yellows has outsmarted them and won the ultimate victory for truth, justice and freedom.

In the fullness of time, good always triumphs over evil.

Outsmart, yeah right, we can see you've been paying attention. That's always the most important thing for these people, truth, justice and the dash to freedom. Of course one mans definition of truth and justice doesn't always match the next mans. Most of us recognise the dash to freedom though.

Around here, In the fullness of time all previously banned members return home to roost, it's almost amazing how they stand out.

Outsmarrting? Please try to find another word to describe her approach. They sent her up country (chiangmai - Chiang Rai), just so that she won't have a chance to open her mouth and show people how dumb she is.

The establishment have thrown everything they've got at her - this has been their "shock and awe" campaign and she has utterly routed them. Her performance very much reminds me of Muhammad Ali's historical "rope a dope" victory. So yes she has completely outsmarted, outwitted, outplanned and outthought the dopes on the other side. Proving that she is much, much, more than just a pretty face. Devastating victory.

Which is why the low turnouts on 2nd February, taken together with the high-level of spoiled-papers & 'no'-votes, is so significant IMO.

What are you saying - that no votes are a more successful opponent to the Reds than the Democrats? Just shows how pathetic Abhisist and his mob truly are.

The No Party have better policies than PTP

The no party have better policies than PTP who in turn have better policies than the Dems.

Sad state of affairs.

This appears to be railroading one case and ignoring many.

This is a special case unless you hadn't noticed but Thailand is spiraling out of control while the government has completely thrown in the towel.

Of course they need to apply speed to this case, are you stupid or what?

The frying pan has burst into flames, but it will have to wait until I finish washing the dishes.

You'd fit right in with the band on the Titanic - just keep on playing as the ship (i.e. your losing cause) sinks. The wise ones have already made for the life rafts - distancing themselves from the pathetic mess they've created. Even Suthep is edging towards the door - looks like he's going to leave the 6 wheelchair grannies to face the music alone.

If Thailand wants to have true democracy change the law to make voting compulsory . Then it is hard to manipulate and buy votes . I think it is the only way that Thailand can change if they keep the status quo Thailand will remain rudderless for generations .

Voting IS compulsory in Thailand.

Which is why the low turnouts on 2nd February, taken together with the high-level of spoiled-papers & 'no'-votes, is so significant IMO.

What are you saying - that no votes are a more successful opponent to the Reds than the Democrats? Just shows how pathetic Abhisist and his mob truly are.

All senators should be elected by the people as per the 97 constitution, not 1/2 elected as per the 07 constitution. It works the world over.

It is very clear that you don't believe democracy, you are in fact against it, so what do you believe in?

I see you didn't reply to the question before so I'll ask again, If senators aren't to be elected, how should they be chosen and by whom shall they be chosen by? Suthep? You? Me?

What magical system have you come up with the rest of the world is unaware of?

How are the "chosen" senators going to be held in check? Who do they answer to? Who can be a senator?

I do believe in democracy thank you very much but the democracy i believe in, doesn't begin and end at the ballot box. If you believe in that, what you believe in is something that isn't actually democracy at all.

As for what the solution is regarding the senate, from the start of this discussion, it has been you, not me, claiming to have the magical system that will solve the issue of judicial independence. Although you have in subsequent posts gone on to contradict that claim but admitting that PTP would most likely end up controlling the judiciary and may well make bad and corrupt decisions with regards it, but in your book that's all ok because after four years of a government controlled judiciary, there would be elections and the electorate would no doubt be enraged by judicial injustice and vote them out. Or maybe they wouldn't, maybe the Thai electorate would vote for whoever offers the biggest handout (and no, not because the Thai electorate is stupid, but because a large percentage of the Thai electorate might not have the luxury of voting on ethics what with hungry mouths to feed and bills to pay) and another four years of non-independent, government controlled judiciary would follow.

I don't have the solution, but what i do know is, yours isn't a good one, at least not until there is the sort of accountability and transparency at parliamentary level that exists in a democracy like the one in the US, in which the senate is voted for, but doesn't end up simply as a tool of the government.

And finally, as has already been pointed out, in spite of your claims that the rest of the world is unaware of a system that doesn't involve voting for the senate, the system in the UK, the system on which Thai democracy was modeled, has managed without it for a very long time.

So you are against the current system without knowing what you want to replace it with - how Suthep wishes the country was full of people like you.

Again you repeat that the Thai voters can't be trusted, not because they're stupid but because they're too hungry (first time I've ever heard this silliness). I am actually quite glad you said this though because it actually supports my position. Just think with a few more years of "populist" policies a great many of the poor will move into the middle classes where they'll then have enough money to not be too hungry to be able to vote without adult supervision. The fact is the system has been rigged against the poor for so long resulting in an enormous disparity between living standards within the country that Thailand and its elites are just going to have to accept the political pendulum swinging back a little excessively in the other direction for a while before it settles back somewhere towards the middle and Thailand finally becomes an open and free, first world country. Only once Thailand has reached this point will it be able to have success in reducing the excessive corruption. Note I said reducing as no nation on earth is corruption free. What the Yellow scum are doing, with their constant coups is retarding Thailands growth towards maturity - every time they kneecap democracy they are setting the country back a good 10 years, which is a shame because all they are doing is delaying the inevitable out of their own greed and heartlessness.

As for the UK - The "House of Lords" may technically be the Upper House of the UK parliament, but unlike most countries with Upper and Lower houses it has no voting powers and no powers to pass laws in any way and merely takes on an advisory role to the House of Commons. So, if you would like an unelected house that's fine - as long as they have no power.

The polling took place in districts where the Democrat party is strong.

Considering the past violence associated with the election and the recent drive by shootings, many people were not willing to run the risk of being injured. Keep in mind that the same group that attempted to block the last election is still present and voters have still experienced intimidation and threats that if they went to vote, they would suffer the consequences. When local agitators are sitting outside polling places making a record of who is voting, it is to be expected that people will put their life and safety ahead of casting a ballot.

But the elections were unhindered this time around - I wonder how many 'no' votes there were, meaning that they garnered even less voters than the pathetic turnouts imply!!!

Beyond farcical!!!

I love how all the diehard Yellows scramble over to any thread they think supports their illegal and failing cause..

Low voter turnout is an obvious consequence of one side boycotting the election.

For example, If there was to be a boxing match held in Thailand between say, Rocky Balboa in the red shorts and Ivan Drago in the Yellow shorts - I'm sure it would be a sellout out.

However, should Ivan p*ss and sh*t his pants, run off crying to mummy and not show up to the fight - then I think we could all expect the attendance to drop off.

Suthep rejects involvement in civil war?

I can understand why - it would just be one more thing to add to his impressive tally of losses.

Everyone knows the old saying "Winners never quit and Suthep never wins".

What's with all the flag-waving in the other thread on this news item?

Just another day as the clock runs down on the caretaker gov. Not long now.

Let's see if the army moves all its Bangkok bunkers. I don't think they are in place for the protests - they are there waiting for the redshirt reaction to yet another elected government being bundled out.

Thing is, after the wind is taken out of everyone's puffed up hubris, how are the elite going to design an electoral system in which they don't lose time after time?

How to design a system so that the trough is at such an angle that the swill naturally flows to the fattest pigs?

Given the cyclic nature of Thai politics, this article is still relevant: http://www.cfr.org/thailand/thailand-democratic-failure-its-lessons-middle-east/p24485

This ain't over by a long stretch...

Great article.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Kraisak Choonhavan, from the opposition Democrat Party of which Suthep was also a member, said the time to end the street protests was appropriate because they failed to force Yingluck from office.

"The most important thing is the fact that the protests are not going to resolve anything if it keeps on the way it is; you know, spread out with four or five stages spending as if there is no tomorrow on entertainment and yet getting hit on a nightly basis with gunmen. So you have to try different things," said Kraisak.

bankokians should surround the park and lock him in for 6 weeks

barricade the exits so everyone who thought it was smart to block the roads

for 6 weeks gets a taste of their own medicine for the same 6 weeks .......if only.......

And that accomplishes exactly what?

Well for one thing, it will free up the presidential suite at the Dusit Thani

I hope he has enough people left to be able to move all his stuff. They will have to do several trips each.

I am glad to see that he has been beaten at last.

Now we need to finish the elections and move on.

I know where you can get some really cheap rice if you and your cronies are interested.

BTW ... the protesters may hinder the route chosen for the tanks hence they were asked to move.

just heard in one consistancy where 400 people were eligable to vote today only 30 turned up .... says alot for the legitimacy of the so called election ...haha ... I think it's good bye Yingluck

"It appears that it has dawned on the army that Mr Suthep’s bid to preserve the role of the establishment might well backfire. Safer for everyone, then, that his insurrection should be boxed into a public park".

The above is a quote from an interesting new article in The Economist. You should read it. The circus is over and the good guys won. It's all just face saving from here on in.

What I saw the last days doesn't seem like a few old ladies in wheelchairs nor 5 people in a phone booth. I think there are talks behind the scene and he is going by the rule book. Great to hear they clean up the mess, we couldn't say that for the Taksin paid "protestors" back in the days. I hope now there is at least the possibility for talks. A government without Suthep or any Shin clan members would be a relief. Maybe an acting PM until all is well. A privy council member? I saw a retired high court judge on the list who has never been involved with politics. Just a thought. People on the Suthep side should start checking out independent news reels. Red shirts should turn off their red channel and check what's going on. It would help a lot. Or maybe just take all those channels off the air so the spilling of hatred can finally be stopped?

I think the generally accepted numbers are:

6 wheelchair grannies

100 homeless Bankokians

60 (ex?) navy seals

1 fat slob western reporter Michael Yon

2000 t-shirt / noodle / whistle vendors

1-200 paid imports from the south

and...

4 genuine Bangkok protestors (including Suthep)

3. "An elected government was begrudgingly allowed to run the country". Who other than the electorate has the right to allow or disallow an elected government to do their job.

The judiciary for one. Same as with all properly functioning democracies around the world. Every single citizen in a country might happen to favor say for example a pedophile becoming their leader but if the constitution prevents such an appointment, laws and rules aren't simply put to one side because that is what the electorate wishes. This is the problem with the reds and with all of Thaksin's parties: a belief that popularity and poll success out trumps the rule of law. It's that mentality that keeps tripping them up.

If every single citizen in a normal country was in favour of a pedophile being their leader - the constitution can be legally amended (usually by referendum) to reflect that desire and the Pedo can be put in charge.

From what I've seen going on over here it appears that the real problem is that unpopularity at polls trumps the law. It seems the losers of elections think they have more right to govern than the winners and disregard the law and try to snatch power at every opportunity.

The truth is this place is changing, majority rule is here to stay and the senate will eventually be returned to a fully elected body.

1. A senate full of ELECTED aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters........

Elected by whom? Elected by the people who they are supposed to be keeping in check. No conflict of interest there then whatsoever. To repeat, elected might mean more accountable but it doesn't necessarily mean more independent. Potentially quite the reverse, at least in this instance.

So go ahead and argue that this reform would potentially help in terms of accountability, but don't try arguing it is the solution to the issue of independence. It isn't. It's rather more likely the solution to a one party state, something that clearly doesn't bother you because like most reds, you seem to believe that popularity at the polls awards the victors carte blanche to do as they please. A fine philosophy all the while you happen to support the victors.

All senators should be elected by the people as per the 97 constitution, not 1/2 elected as per the 07 constitution. It works the world over.

It is very clear that you don't believe democracy, you are in fact against it, so what do you believe in?

I see you didn't reply to the question before so I'll ask again, If senators aren't to be elected, how should they be chosen and by whom shall they be chosen by? Suthep? You? Me?

What magical system have you come up with the rest of the world is unaware of?

How are the "chosen" senators going to be held in check? Who do they answer to? Who can be a senator?

This is what 6 grandma's in wheelchairs and 100 homeless people look like according to UDD supporters.

And they want us to believe the rice scheme has no corruption!!

This is clearly at least 0.000001% of eligible voters.

An unstoppable popular movement if ever there was one.

Dems have got the next election in the bag just on this photo alone.

(unless of course they go for a trifecta of boycotts)

So it works in the US but wont work in Thailand because....? Thai voters are too dumb?

Nothing to do with the voters. To do with the wide scale level of corruption and nepotism that would in practice mean, a senate full of aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, cousins, former class mates and friends, of those in power.

I've never stated that changing the senate to a fully elected body would result in a loss of independence for the judiciary - I believe exactly the opposite is true - a fully elected senate will lead to a more independent, less corruptible judiciary.

You stated "if the PTP have greater control over judicial appointments it is because a majority of the citizens want it that way and if the PTP make bad or corrupt decisions the people will take away the power they gave at the next election".

You are accepting therefore that PTP would have greater control over judicial appointments (judicial appointments that are supposed to be keeping them and other politicians in check) and you are accepting that PTP may get away with making bad or corrupt decisions. None of that sounds like a move forward for independence or for anyone accept PTP. As for the voters, they only get to vote once every four years, at least that is the idea, and furthermore, your suggestion that the fear of being voted out will by itself police politicians into not making bad and corrupt decisions is totally flawed and is proven to be totally flawed pretty much every day in Thailand by the actions of politicians.

The biggest problem facing Thailand is that the Democrats are so woeful and inept that it can't win enough votes to be a strong parliamentary force against the PTP. Instead of trying to change the system to allow the minority to exert control over institutions without a popular mandate the PDRC rabble should focus their efforts on developing policies and finding suitable candidates that will allow them to actually win some votes. But that seems like too much hard work when you can just head to the streets with tanks or 6 wheelchair grannies and steal power.

That is one of the problems but the other one is PTPs inability to run the country with the best interests of the country. What all started this current mess wasn't the PTP being in power, as they had been in power for a couple of years without significant unrest and without great resistance. For the most part they were begrudgingly allowed to get on with running the country, just with the unspoken proviso from above of "ok, but please don't take the piss". The eleventh hour changes to the ridiculously described reconciliation bill, so as to include Thaksin in the amnesty, along with Abhisit and Suthep who were thrown in, in a pathetic attempt to appease the other side, was taking the piss. Why did they have to do it? They surely knew the chaos it would create. Or perhaps they didn't. Perhaps they seriously thought that with the nicely timed murder charges on the table, thanks to their good friend Tarit, they would have the leverage they needed to push the farce through. Either way, it is such a shame. They just can't help themselves it seems, because they consistently keep doing it.

1. A senate full of ELECTED aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters........

2. If not ELECTED politicians accountable to the people - tell me who do you think should control the senate? A council of "good people" selected by Suthep? And what checks and balances will they be answerable to? Democracy has often but described as not perfect but as the least worst form of government.

3. "An elected government was begrudgingly allowed to run the country". Who other than the electorate has the right to allow or disallow an elected government to do their job. This is the crux of the problem - there exists a minority that feels they own the joint and can decide who can and can't govern the country. They don't accept democracy and are desperately trying to cling to the old power structure by all means fair and (mainly) foul. One of those foul means is by trying to rig the system to remove independent agencies of government away from the control of the electorate (read people).

4. The campaign against Red governments has been continuous and ongoing since 2005. Look up Pitak Siam, another failed, dodgy anti democratic movement that existed between the PAD and the PDRC.

What can be learnt from modern day functioning democracies with independent judiciaries, for example how does a country such as the US approve candidates for judicial positions who are nominated by the government of the day? A fully elected senate holds a hearing and then votes to accept or deny the appointment. Opposition to such a system in Thailand appears to be rooted in the belief that the local electorate is not sophisticated enough to be trusted with choosing who should govern them and that things would be much better for all if they would just but out and let the elites run the show as they see fit. Unfortunately for those who think that way the times are a changing.

As per usual, you are making a strawman argument. The opposition isn't to the system as employed in the US, the opposition is to the system as it would work in Thailand. There would be a world of difference between the two, to suggest otherwise is naive beyond belief, and to reiterate, the outcome of this reform would not be a more independent judiciary, a fact you have already tacitly accepted with your attempted justification paraphrased along the lines of: well yes, it wouldn't be more independent, and yes, it may end up in the pocket of the government, but at least it would be more accountable.

I think the real "at least" from people like you, making this argument, is that the PTP will have a more complete control and one less body to check what they are doing. Something you seem to think they deserve the right to on the basis of an ability to win elections.

How things work in grown up land isn't that winning an election raises you above being questioned or challenged. You seem to think it does. Hun Sen's model of democracy is what you are aspiring to, not the US's.

So it works in the US but wont work in Thailand because....? Thai voters are too dumb?

I've never stated that changing the senate to a fully elected body would result in a loss of independence for the judiciary - I believe exactly the opposite is true - a fully elected senate will lead to a more independent, less corruptible judiciary.

The biggest problem facing Thailand is that the Democrats are so woeful and inept that it can't win enough votes to be a strong parliamentary force against the PTP. Instead of trying to change the system to allow the minority to exert control over institutions without a popular mandate the PDRC rabble should focus their efforts on developing policies and finding suitable candidates that will allow them to actually win some votes. But that seems like too much hard work when you can just head to the streets with tanks or 6 wheelchair grannies and steal power.

As for your concerns about the PTP having a more complete control over the senate just on the basis of winning elections???? Surely the basis of winning elections should be the only basis for controlling the senate - any other basis is simply anti democratic.

The PTP were pursuing a fully elected senate. The senate is the body that approves the appointment of individuals to government roles such as judges.

Currently 1/2 the senate is unelected - those senators that are unelected are not beholden to anybody except the people who appointed them. The only way for the PTP to have more control over the independent institutions with a fully elected senate is to win elections. Elections are how the population decide who they want to make decisions on their behalf. So if the PTP have greater control over judicial appointments it is because a majority of the citizens want it that way and if the PTP make bad or corrupt decisions the people will take away the power they gave at the next election - it's called accountability. It's how things work in "grown-up land".

This line of discussion began with an agreed need between us for the judiciary to be more independent. The PTP backed reforms you support would do nothing to achieve that. Your post above tacitly accepts that, but reasons that the lack of independence, and the risk of the senate simply becoming a yes-man for the government, thereby becoming pretty much a redundant body, would be made up for by increased accountability. I don't think it would.

What can be learnt from modern day functioning democracies with independent judiciaries, for example how does a country such as the US approve candidates for judicial positions who are nominated by the government of the day? A fully elected senate holds a hearing and then votes to accept or deny the appointment. Opposition to such a system in Thailand appears to be rooted in the belief that the local electorate is not sophisticated enough to be trusted with choosing who should govern them and that things would be much better for all if they would just but out and let the elites run the show as they see fit. Unfortunately for those who think that way the times are a changing.

Suthep's mission will only have been a total success when he and his trouser heaps of Wonga. Again.

You know that is not true.

He wants to improve politics in Thailand and will step down once he has achieved his purpose and gained meaningful and much needed reforms to the electoral voting system that is so drastically flawed (as these devastatingly damaging populist policies confirm)!!!

Why did he not improve politics in Thailand when he was Deputy Prime Minister? Too busy giving away public lands to his rich buddies I would imagine.

The only electoral reforms he wants are ones the produce results that enable the minority to rule over the majority.

As for the policies of this government... populism is defined as a political doctrine in which one sides with "the people" against "the elite". Hardly a crime.

Diluting the votes of the rural northerners is the only reform that will prevent PTP from continuing to win elections. It is the only reform the PDRC could bring in that would allow the Democrats to "win" an election. All the "corruption" and "Thaksin is evil" stuff is just a smoke screen. They thought that taking away half the senate from the electors in the last constitution would allow them to maintain control of the permanent institutions and thus be able to still exert pressure on the government of the day to do their bidding, no matter who was in power. They clearly thought wrong and now they want to illegally seize power again and enact reforms that further disenfranchise voters. The principle of 1 man 1 vote is the only thing that the PDRC is truly opposed to - the rest is negotiable.

Can you link to anything that indicates that the PDRC is against "One man, One vote" in any of their proposed reforms?

As far as I'm aware the PDRC has published nothing, not a single thing, all we get are rants about corruption, Thaksin is the boogeyman and Yinglucks' vagina. Everyone outside of Sutheps' inner circle has absolutely no idea what the reforms are that he wishes to force upon the land and whom he intends to put into his "good people council". Quite insane really that anybody would support the idea of handing a nation over to such a madman. So, if nobody knows what the PDRC are really planning to do how can I say that they are against the principle of 1 man 1 vote? Easily, their past form in changing the senate from being a fully elected chamber in the 1997 constitution to becoming only a 1/2 elected chamber in the 2007 constitution was a direct assualt on 1 man 1 vote democracy. Secondly it is quite obvious that as long as elections are held the overwhelming majority of voters in the populous north will continue elect "Red" governments, given the fact that those in the PDRC Yellow faction look down upon the northern buffalo and will never stoop to treating them as equal citizens (or even human beings) the elite side will never win a 1 man 1 vote election as they will never put forward a raft of policies that will benefit the sub-humans. The only way for this minority mob to ever hold government with at least a veneer of legitimacy is to implement a system similar to Hong Kong i.e. to eliminate 1 man 1vote. Thirdly, the banners and chants of the mob for the government to "respect my taxes" is an argument that says because I am richer than you and pay more in taxes than you I have more rights to decide who should run the country and how it should be run. A large proportion of Thais pay no tax at all and a great many PDRC Yellows believe this is a justification to disenfranchise their fellow citizens.

So I repeat, the only way for the PDRC Yellows to bring an end to the cycle of the Red governments being legally elected by the rural voters and then the being illegally tossed out by the urban PDRC Yellows is to eliminate the principle of 1 man 1 vote.

"how can I say that they are against the principle of 1 man 1 vote?"

Yes, how can you? But you just did!

"The principle of 1 man 1 vote is the only thing that the PDRC is truly opposed to - the rest is negotiable. "

The people that are saying "respect my taxes" are sick of the government wasting billions on failed policies and corruption.

I forgot to add the oft heard Yellow chant "Thailand is not ready for democracy" or reference the lovely Chitpas and her comments on the rural voters and their lack of educational ability to exercise their right to vote. Seems to me she was saying we want remove your right to vote to protect you from your own incompetence.

[by having a half appointed senate that is responsible for appointing judges (which in turn appoint unelected senators) doesn't help the situation - this needs to change and when it does the judiciary will be on the way to becoming truly independent. PTP actually tried to reform the judiciary in this exact manner and look what it got them.

Perhaps that is because contrary to your suggestion, the reforms that PTP were proposing, wouldn't have in fact led to a more independent judiciary, but rather a judiciary PTP could better control. Why else do you think they were pursuing it? For the good of the country?! For democracy?! Please...

Sent from my i-mobile IQ XA using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

What possible argument is there to deny the people the right to choose who shall govern them?

The answer to that would have been revealed, had you honestly answered my question about why the PTP were pursuing this reform.

The PTP were pursuing a fully elected senate. The senate is the body that approves the appointment of individuals to government roles such as judges.

Currently 1/2 the senate is unelected - those senators that are unelected are not beholden to anybody except the people who appointed them. The only way for the PTP to have more control over the independent institutions with a fully elected senate is to win elections. Elections are how the population decide who they want to make decisions on their behalf. So if the PTP have greater control over judicial appointments it is because a majority of the citizens want it that way and if the PTP make bad or corrupt decisions the people will take away the power they gave at the next election - it's called accountability. It's how things work in "grown-up land".