candide

When you look at the five groups that are proposed to do the appointing, you realise that feudalism is still very much alive in this country. The proposal is fatuous and farcical.

It isn't the "5 groups" that are doing the "appointing".

The senators will be "indirectly elected FROM 5 groups".

I haven't seen who will be doing the "electing" yet.

Not quite understand this.

The 5 groups are not appointing.

The Senate will be indirectly appointed by the 5 groups.

You don't know who will be doing the electing. ?

So a key question is who will appoint senators? Let me guess:

- a committee composed of representatives of the army and so called independent organisations (court, nacc...)

- and in turn senators will approve nomination of members of these independent organisations.

It's only my guess...

"So one governor of 39 in America is corrupt"

Where did you get 39?

"Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate."

I'm not aware of a democracy in which elected officials are not partisan towards their parties. Regarding criminals molding laws, in Thailand investigations and prosecutions are done done selectively, usually to benefit whoever is currently in charge. In fact, if it were not for blanket pardons, the 2007 constitution would have been written at the direction of criminals, as well as the one currently in work.

"Education my friend. Education. Strong democracies have an educated electorate. Weak democracies or failed ones don't."

Do you think the "Twelve principles" brainwashing will further democratic education?

"Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected."

I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

"And the most interesting thing is that democracies around the world have appointed or indirectly elected senators and you still say it is undemocratic with your argument to rebut that being the weather in Bangkok and Amsterdam!"

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and ignored by you, indirectly elected Senates in functioning democracies are always chosen by people who are answerable to the voters.

Where did you get 39?

Here.

"Would you feel comfortable having criminals in your senate with those criminals moulding laws of the country and being partisan towards the party that allowed them to stand for the senate."

You did not address this issue. Would you prefer the Udon and CM senators that were involved in criminal activity or the senators that represented a cross section of society?

Do you understand that the electorate do not understand the ramifications of their vote regarding senators ergo why criminals were being voted in? Do you like criminals in the senate?

"Women, visible minorities will be too often poorly represented if senators are elected."

I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

Agreed. As has been shown through elected senators the diversity is focused on a PTP agenda and because an uneducated and naive electorate will vote for someone that gives em a great rice price irrespective of criminal history. Heck, I would to the same if I was uneducated and poor. Africa does it and look at their "democracy"

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and ignored by you, indirectly elected Senates in functioning democracies are always chosen by people who are answerable to the voters.

Great so, lets adopt a democratic Canadian system of appointed senators. to allow the points I highlighted to be administered.

In summery do you prefer a senator that smuggled a husband across the border to escape prosecution and a senator that was involved in a terrorist organization or a senator that represented minority groups? Remember elections are only one principle of 15 when it comes to democracy….

"Where did you get 39?

Here."

I see, you added up 28 Republican governors, 21 Democrat governors, and 1 independent and arrived at 39.

"You did not address this issue."

You did not address the issue of the selective nature of political prosecutions in Thailand, or the fact that the coup leaders make themselves legal by routinely granting themselves pardons. Regarding criminals becoming Senators, it depends on their crimes. However I would rather have an elected criminal in office than a pardoned criminal appointed to office by an unelected junta.

"I'm sure the appointed Senate will have as much diversity and as many women and minorities as the junta leadership.

Agreed. As has been shown through elected senators the diversity is focused on a PTP agenda and because an uneducated and naive electorate will vote for someone that gives em a great rice price irrespective of criminal history. Heck, I would to the same if I was uneducated and poor. Africa does it and look at their "democracy" "

Are you now coming out against diversity, after initially stating "A.S. reflects diversity of the Thai people."?

"Great so, lets adopt a democratic Canadian system of appointed senators. to allow the points I highlighted to be administered."

As I pointed out before, and you ignored, the Canadian Senators are appointed to reflect regional interests, not military or bureaucratic interests, and the Canadian Senate has much less power than the proposed Thai Senate.

"In summery do you prefer a senator that smuggled a husband across the border to escape prosecution and a senator that was involved in a terrorist organization or a senator that represented minority groups?"

I've already addressed the first part, I prefer elected over junta appointed. Regarding the second part, what minority interests are you referring to? Do you regard the military, the judiciary, professional organizations, etc. as minorities?

Might be good to agree to disagree here.

WOW my math was bad. If I spelt my name wrong I assume that is a personal attack as well. The belittling is a frustrating effort because you are unable to rebut my statements.

I prefer a senate full of representatives that adhere to a democratic ergo Canadians form of government, where you prefer a senate full of criminals elected by uneducated farmers. Remember the elected senators where convicted of crimes where there as the appointed senators where upstanding citizens of the community.

As long as peace and stability is concurrent as it is now under the current peaceful government then I am appreciative of your viewpoint yet fearful of the violence that your viewpoint will instigate.

I fear you more than I respect you my friend,

Why? You would prefer 2 criminals from the PTP that are elected by people that have no idea what a senators job does as opposed to senators than are appointed because they are intelligent, representative of minorities and will not represent an agenda of the party in power.

Kinda like Canada, Another democratic country.

What is proposed cannot be compared to the case of Canada either.

The Senate in Canada consists of 105 members appointed by the governor general (representing the Monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II) on the advice of the prime minister. Prime ministers normally choose members of their own parties to be senators, though they sometimes nominate independents or members of opposing parties. The governor general, must select as prime minister the person most likely to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons; this individual is typically the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in that chamber. (summarised from wikipedia pages).

So it is not at all a self-reproducing network as is proposed for thailand.

The senate has also far less power than what is currently proposed in the case of Thailand

May I conclude with

indirect election is only acceptable when it's of the right kind, but not if it is of the wrong kind.

The Thai version might be right or wrong, but as details are still to be worked out, one may only speculate.

OK let's start again:

"Indirect election is a process in which voters in an election do not choose between candidates for an office but rather elect persons who will then make the choice. It is one of the oldest form of elections and is still used today for many upper houses and presidents."

http://en.wikipedia....direct_election

So it is clear, the people who make the choice have been elected by direct universal suffrage

In the OP the words "indirectly elected" are used (or translated this way), but the system which is described is not indirect election system, it's an apointment system. The different groups that should appoint senate members are not elected by citizen, it is not an unkown detail, it is clearly stated in the OP and other articles.

What we can expect in Thailand is "appointed senators", not indirectly elected.

From the OP:

Khamnoon Sitthisaman, committee spokesman, said the panel reached a consensus that 200 senators would be indirectly elected

"Indirect election is a process in which voters in an election do not choose between candidates for an office but rather elect persons who will then make the choice. It is one of the oldest form of elections and is still used today for many upper houses and presidents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_election

For example, in France, Senators are elected indirectly by approximately 150,000 officials ("grands électeurs"), including regional councilors, department councilors, mayors, city councilors in large towns, and members of the National Assembly. All elected people.

The differents groups cited in the OP are not elected by citizens, so it's not indirect election.

"They are the group of former members of the executive, the judiciary and the legislature, the group of former key government officials like former armed forces chiefs and former permanent secretaries, the group of chairpersons at legalized professional organizations such as the Thai Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Thai Industries, a group of people's organizations and the group of various professional organizations"

where are the members who said the suicides were Yingluck fault?probably hiding under the bed

the rice farmers committed suicide because yl didnt pay them yet she kept promising to so they were led down the garden path by her and the ptp govt. This is a case of a farmer simply not happy about the price he gets for his product that he decided top grow, no one promised him he would make a fortune, nothing to do with the govt but world prices, totally different, YL simply didnt pay them what they were owed by her, try using fact and not bias so why should we hide, she was responsible for several deaths due entirely to her rice scam and continuing lies about paying farmers

YL got some help on this matter too:

Protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban last night warned both commercial and state banks against any rice loans to the caretaker government with threat of facing shutdown by protesters.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/pdrc-leader-warns-banks-rice-loans-government

Anti-government demonstrators Wednesday stalled the electronic rice auction by cutting power supply at the Commerce Ministry forcing the auction to be put off to March 26.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/protesters-stall-rice-auction

just a question, but didn't Yingluck's lawyer ask to have more witnesses interviewed many months ago and that request was denied?

ah, found a link : http://english.sina.com/world/2014/0708/716405.html

kinda bizarre that the NACC refused to talk to witnesses 5 months ago but now they will.

guess it depends on who does the asking.

Obviously it's their witnesses (witnessing for the accusation), not Yingluck's witnesses.

Guess Witsanu and Singjai will soon be arrested for leaving the scene of an accident.

They must be lucky not to be charged for damaging an expensive car!

You are just playing with words!

..

- When they talk about 2014 GDP forecast (in December 2013), they surely don't refer to the political unrest during the two previous decades.

- When the gdp growth is only 1%, compared to initial forecast of 5.1% or 4%, it can only be because of events happening between the initial forecast and the end of 2014. So what happened in 2014?

quite easy to blame Thaksin for this one, none of the protests started before his name was added to the list of amnesty. This was done real late and was advised against by everyone.

This was the catalyst that started it all, this is what has brought down the government. There are even PTP sources that agree that his was the most stupid thing they did the thing that brought their corrupt government down.

That's right, it has been the initial catalyst, and a major mistake by the previous government.

However, as it has been withdrawn in November 2013, the 2014 protests had obviously another purpose.....

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"... This case is under the public spotlight, so we have to speed up the decision ... "

By putting it off even longer, I wonder why ... ?

Cynics might suggest deals are being made behind closed doors to ensure nothing serious happens and ensure that a precedent isn't set that doesn't suit the incumbent PM and future PM and their minions.

Quite possible.. I mean what would the world come to if politicians have to pay back money lost and stolen. That would set bad precedents. We all know YL was responsible for the rice scheme that was proposed as self financing / budget neutral (for those that don't understand means it would not cost a thing and was not budgeted because budget was already in a large deficit). So when they are talking about a loss.. they are right as it was not budgeted even though proof came out it was costing money (700 billion or more latest count).

People involved were bullied threatened until the army came and shown the world what was truly going on.

Now this same army must have the balls to go after YL and her minions, and hopefully it does set a precedent so that bad politicians of whatever color will be held responsible for their actions.

(I wont hold my breath)

You mean the same Army that has now given the rice and rubber farmers a new gurantee pricing program that will further drive the national debt? The same Army that has created new subsidies for rice, rubber, and milk farmers? The military coup and its PDRC cohorts have cost the nation about 3.5%-5% GDP growth over 2013 and 2014 with a likelihood of low GDP growth in 2015. Will they be held accountable for such economic losses to the nation? I'm all for precedent but it has to be consistently and fairly applied.

I'm curious, how did you get to the 3.5%-5% loss in GDP growth over 2013/2014 ... and how can you blame that solely on the PDRC/coup?

You just need to do a little search on the internet with keywords: GDP, Thailand, Protest, forecast.

This is what I found. It's only on 2014, but it makes the assumption look reasonable:

First a report by the university of the Chamber of Commerce (not a red shirt nest, obviously), stating that:

(news from December 17th, 2013)

"The Economic and Business Forecast Center of the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce forecast that the ongoing political unrest could inflict loss of over 200-300 billion baht on the economy with GDP growing less than 3 %."

They also declare "However, he said the center has forecast that Thailands economy should increase by 4-4.5 percent, lower than prior prediction of 5.1 percent, and the country would lose 70-100 billion baht because of the prolonged political protests."

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/protests-hinder-gdp-growth

Now if we look at the current gdp forecast for 2014, it's 1%.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/2014-growth-now-1

So 5.1% minus 1% is 4.1% loss of growth for 2014. For a GDG of around USD 400b, it's a loss of GDP of USD 16.4b, around THB 537b

If we take the corrected forecast they made (taking into account 70-100b loss forecast due to protest) of 4% it's a loss of GDP of around THB 393b

It would make more sense to use the 5.1% original forecast as it was made before the protest events untill December 17 2013.

And the key phrase in all of that was "ongoing political unrest" which would apply for at least the last two decades here and not solely laid at the door of the PDRC and the coup as was stated by someone in the previous post I replied to who has very large blinkers on ...

You are just playing with words!

- When they talk about 2014 GDP forecast (in December 2013), they surely don't refer to the political unrest during the two previous decades.

- When the gdp growth is only 1%, compared to initial forecast of 5.1% or 4%, it can only be because of events happening between the initial forecast and the end of 2014. So what happened in 2014?

What is the confusion? The EC opposed the poll and advised Pheu Thai to cancel with a Royal Decree required to do so. Pheu Thai turned down the EC recommendation and did not seek a decree hence the poll had to go ahead regardless of EC's opposing view. Then Suthep's mob PCAD disrupted the booths.

I know this is hard for some to comprehend on here but the Dems and Suthep's mob are not the EC, are not the NACC, are not the Junta or any other authoritative, legislative, hidden hand or what ever mass group one wishes to label them. Perhaps where the difficulty with that understanding is that when Thaksin or one of his proxies are in control then all apart from the EC, NACC, courts and Army are under his patronage so the principle is expected and so the Red eyed mob then think that those opposed must be all under a yellow banner.

I thought the reason the Election was nullified is that there weren't enough seats with candidates to vote for and the EC told PTP that it was therefore going to be an illegal election and not to proceed with it . I think they should be suing PTP for refusing to halt the election when they were told many times not to hold it.

A bit like the rice scam - lots of people said don't do it, but PTP went ahead anyway. Just add the Bt3B to the Bt600B from the Rice Scam,

Plus there are 2 more scams waiting to be investigated - Student Tablet Scam Bt??B and the first Car buyers Scam Bt??B

One could surmise the PTP held the election knowing that its failure would benefit them immensely. As you stated everyone warned them it would fail.

Even with the potential for violence and all the warnings pointing to a disruption yingluck never ordered the military out to monitor polling stations to ensure it ran smoothly. yingluck purported to have sent out 10 000 police to ensure it ran smoothly though yet a protest leader was shot dead with police no where to be seen and he was killed within 5 minutes from a police station!

The PTP are very very happy with the outcome of that failed election. They knew if it went ahead peacefully they would lose and then they would have to find another excuse for disrespecting the majorities wishes. This lack of majority support has already been proven through the data collected from the failed election. The way it panned out they can scream foul while purporting to still have the backing of the majority when in fact it is not the case.

So the DEMS refused to participate in the elections knowing that the PTP will lose it. OK, it's christmas eve, but who do you think can believe such a fairy tale?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2014

"On 21 March 2014, Thailand's Constitutional Court invalidated the election on grounds that it was not completed within one day throughout the nation".....

............

"However, Prime Minister Yingluck argued that neither the government nor the commission is empowered to cancel or adjourn an election.^[23] Deputy Prime Minister Thepkanchana added that if the government adjourned the election, for any reason, beyond the 60-day legal timeframe, it could be taken to court for violating the constitution.^[24]

On 23 January, the Commission requested the Constitutional Court to decide if an election can be adjourned and who is the competent authority to do so. The court unanimously agreed to address the case.^[23] On 24 January, the court, by seven votes to one, ruled that the government and the election commission could jointly postpone the election. The government then offered to postpone the election with the caveat that there would be an agreement by all parties that the rescheduled election date would not be disrupted or boycotted.^[25]

On 28 January the Election Commission held a joint conference with the Council of Ministers and offered to delay the election for three or four months, but that if the government insisted that the election take place as originally scheduled, the Commission would seek assistance from the armed forces to ensure peace and order during the election.^[26] After the conference, the Commission stated that the election would take place as scheduled because most parts of the country were unhindered by disruption and the delay did not guarantee that unrest would cease".

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"... This case is under the public spotlight, so we have to speed up the decision ... "

By putting it off even longer, I wonder why ... ?

Cynics might suggest deals are being made behind closed doors to ensure nothing serious happens and ensure that a precedent isn't set that doesn't suit the incumbent PM and future PM and their minions.

Quite possible.. I mean what would the world come to if politicians have to pay back money lost and stolen. That would set bad precedents. We all know YL was responsible for the rice scheme that was proposed as self financing / budget neutral (for those that don't understand means it would not cost a thing and was not budgeted because budget was already in a large deficit). So when they are talking about a loss.. they are right as it was not budgeted even though proof came out it was costing money (700 billion or more latest count).

People involved were bullied threatened until the army came and shown the world what was truly going on.

Now this same army must have the balls to go after YL and her minions, and hopefully it does set a precedent so that bad politicians of whatever color will be held responsible for their actions.

(I wont hold my breath)

You mean the same Army that has now given the rice and rubber farmers a new gurantee pricing program that will further drive the national debt? The same Army that has created new subsidies for rice, rubber, and milk farmers? The military coup and its PDRC cohorts have cost the nation about 3.5%-5% GDP growth over 2013 and 2014 with a likelihood of low GDP growth in 2015. Will they be held accountable for such economic losses to the nation? I'm all for precedent but it has to be consistently and fairly applied.

I'm curious, how did you get to the 3.5%-5% loss in GDP growth over 2013/2014 ... and how can you blame that solely on the PDRC/coup?

You just need to do a little search on the internet with keywords: GDP, Thailand, Protest, forecast.

This is what I found. It's only on 2014, but it makes the assumption look reasonable:

First a report by the university of the Chamber of Commerce (not a red shirt nest, obviously), stating that:

(news from December 17th, 2013)

"The Economic and Business Forecast Center of the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce forecast that the ongoing political unrest could inflict loss of over 200-300 billion baht on the economy with GDP growing less than 3 %."

They also declare "However, he said the center has forecast that Thailand’s economy should increase by 4-4.5 percent, lower than prior prediction of 5.1 percent, and the country would lose 70-100 billion baht because of the prolonged political protests."

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/protests-hinder-gdp-growth

Now if we look at the current gdp forecast for 2014, it's 1%.

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/2014-growth-now-1

So 5.1% minus 1% is 4.1% loss of growth for 2014. For a GDG of around USD 400b, it's a loss of GDP of USD 16.4b, around THB 537b

If we take the corrected forecast they made (taking into account 70-100b loss forecast due to protest) of 4% it's a loss of GDP of around THB 393b

It would make more sense to use the 5.1% original forecast as it was made before the protest events untill December 17 2013.

He opposed the poll, so he is going to bring lawsuits against the people who disrupted it??

Wouldn't they be on the same team / common cause??

I just don't get it. Words fail me.

He is simply trying to protect himself and the EC!

If you recall the red shirt leaders threatened to sue the EC to make them pay for that election. Tit for tat

The attack was from the Dems (broadly representing people who disrupted elections):

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/786098-nipit-ec-should-be-held-accountable-for-damages-for-feb-2-poll-fiasco/

They know it may fall on them, so they start finger-pointing at each other. This is going to be good!

How about hitting up on Suthep and the mad monk to pay up their share along with the Army and Police who stood by and let it happen.

With many posters having told me a government shouldn't use its army if it has a functioning police force, I don't think you should include the army here.

Anyway, didn't Pheu Thai already threaten or actually sue the EC when they asked permission to postpone the elections? That would mean that one way or another they're screwed.

As I recall it, Yingluck asked the army a number of times for assistance in dealing with the ferals. It was not forthcoming.

Why didn't she ask the police? It was their job not the army's.

The Shins had filled all the key posts and senior roles in the police with their cronies and family members. Should have been easy, one phone call.

My feeling is that they feared that, in case of violent clashes between the police and protesters, the army would stage a coup to establish order.

This is a joke! The same political side that illegally blocked elections is pointing at others and claiming for justice.

Not sure about his comments, but he has fabulous head of hair for a man his age.

Sure! But his hairdresser is a crook!

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I think we are being bamboozled here. Didn't Panadda (who wants to indict Yingluck) say that 85% of the stored rice was rotten only yesterday? And now today, we hear that 95% can be sold at auction? Something is rotten in Denmark.

But earlier you have this:

RICE-PLEDGING SCHEME

'80% of rice is fine'

The Nation July 29, 2014

"Only 10 per cent of rice stockpiles has spoiled and only some sacks were missing, while 80 per cent was in still good condition, the rice inspection committee reported to the Rice Policy Committee meeting yesterday.

The audit of 18 million tonnes of pledged rice stored in granaries has progressed by 72 per cent to 1,290 out of 1,787 locations nationwide."

And

'Improvement on many fronts after two months: NCPO'

The Nation July 28m 2014

"Since the NCPO initiated the inspection early this month, 18 million tonnes of pledged rice in 1,787 granaries around the country have been checked by troops against records for both quantity and quality."

It looks like it's Panadda who has been trying to b.......

The Nation! A strong reputation! Ah! Ah!

You just can't make this up.

Well, with all the comments on polls from the last few days I got the impression people here thought, were really convinced, that you could make this up, at least in Thailand

Not enough information on the methodology to be able to assess the validity of this poll, of course (sampling, questionnaire, etc...).

And as usual, in current political conditions, there is no guarantee that respondents express their real opinion. It's also a pity they have published separate rankings for male and female, as you cannot compare the results of the two categories.

However, they did not make themselves ridiculous with results such as "93% of respondents like..." ,

Guess why they distinguish between male and female?

They should reform The Nation and hire real journalists.

Do I understand well?

"Parliament will consist of upper and lower houses. The Lower House will comprise 350 MPs elected through only a constituency system, as there will be no party-list system. A constituency can have up to three MP candidates. One voter can vote for one MP candidate. The first three candidates with the most votes win the seats in that constituency."

if the article is accurate and if I understand it, let's imagine the following situation: in each constituency candidate of party A gets 50% of vote, candidate of party B gets 30% and candidate of party C gets 20%. So the three parties will have the same number of MPs (1/3 for each) in lower house?

Do I understand well?

"Parliament will consist of upper and lower houses. The Lower House will comprise 350 MPs elected through only a constituency system, as there will be no party-list system. A constituency can have up to three MP candidates. One voter can vote for one MP candidate. The first three candidates with the most votes win the seats in that constituency."