Jump to content

Opinion: Thailand is at a crossroads because of unelected, unaccountable bodies


Recommended Posts

Posted
6 hours ago, h90 said:

27% is not the collective will.....

And a collective will is something scary anyway....There was done enough harm for the collective will from the right wing and the left wing in the past.

Some struggle and compromise might be less efficient but much safer

Where did you get 27% from??

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, h90 said:

I am sure there will be a democratic elected PM...just not Pita

That would no longer be democratic then. The original will of the 2/3 majority coalition to want Pita as PM would then ultimately be manipulated from unelected people.

Edited by tomacht8
  • Like 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

That would no longer be democratic then. The original will of the 2/3 majority coalition to want Pita as PM would then ultimately be manipulated from unelected people.

If say PTP comes and 2/3 of the MPs vote for him...not democratic?

Posted
53 minutes ago, RamblingOn said:

Where did you get 27% from??

14.4 Million out of 52.2 Million voters.

Posted
1 hour ago, tomacht8 said:

Yes. This can/will happen after the unelected Senate blocked Pita's candidacy. That means translated: The 2/3 majority of the parliamentarians elected by the people want Pita as a prospective PM. Now that's going to be blocked by the Senate, isn't it? That means who determines who gets the go as a PM in such a situation? The people who voted democratically or the 232 unelected senators? 

The people who voted democratically didn't vote to 2/3 for Pita....his party got 38% of the valid votes so 62% voted for someone else. For example 29% (PTP) wanted someone from PTP as PM. So the compromise just looks a bit different.
If the Senate manage to install someone complete different than I agree with you. If it is just a shift in the coalition or another similar coalition than it is still democratic.

Posted
4 minutes ago, h90 said:

14.4 Million out of 52.2 Million voters.

Wrong again. There are people who are entitled to vote and people who actually vote.

  • Like 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

Wrong again. There are people who are entitled to vote and people who actually vote.

Yes. In every democracy in the world it is only those who actually vote whose vote is counted. Even in Australia - where voting is theoretically 'compulsory' - only the c91% who actually vote are counted.

 

To count the non-votes of those who for whatever reason don't vote is just grotesque. A disgusting perversion of due process.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
1 hour ago, tomacht8 said:

You drill holes in thick boards that don't exist. The entire coalition has voted in favor of Pita as the new PM, representing a clear 2/3 majority in Parliament. It can't be that difficult to understand.

It is that difficult if he does not want to understand.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

I give up with you. 

Obviously you are not familiar with the basic principles of a parliamentary democracy.

Question for you: an election in Farangland: one party wins by some real margin. The second and the third (which is really small in compare with the first) make a coalition and the third makes the PM....democratic and the will of the people? Happens and no one complains

 

Or: one party has a PM candidate who is loved by the voters....get PM after a year the own party removes him and put in some complete unknown person...will of the people? But no one complains

 

Or von der Leyen as EU president (if you followed that drama in detail).

 

In the pure sense of parliamentary democracy you are right (and the senator construction is nonsense) but that pure ideal democracy doesn't exist anywhere on the world (maybe beside the peoples republic of north korea....there the people get what they vote for ????)

Posted
25 minutes ago, h90 said:

Question for you: an election in Farangland: one party wins by some real margin. The second and the third (which is really small in compare with the first) make a coalition and the third makes the PM....democratic and the will of the people? Happens and no one complains

 

Or: one party has a PM candidate who is loved by the voters....get PM after a year the own party removes him and put in some complete unknown person...will of the people? But no one complains

 

Or von der Leyen as EU president (if you followed that drama in detail).

 

In the pure sense of parliamentary democracy you are right (and the senator construction is nonsense) but that pure ideal democracy doesn't exist anywhere on the world (maybe beside the peoples republic of north korea....there the people get what they vote for ????)

Now what kind of argument is that? To excuse the undemocratic process in Thailand with other undemocratic processes around the world. That doesn't make any sense at all.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, madmitch said:

Early days yet. 

 

I anticipate relative calm if the coalition gets the PM job, even with a PM who isn'f from MFP.

 

I expect angry, violent protets if Prawit or similar get the job, which will be escalated further if Pita is disqualified and/or MFP dissolved.

 

Watch this space.

I agree. These are filthy men, who will use any tactic they can, to keep feeding from the golden calf. They must be stopped, if Thailand is to have any sort of meaningful future. 

  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, bamnutsak said:

a new, accountable governance model that echoes the true spirit of Thai democracy.

Does anyone actually know what this is?  Is it different to other forms of democracy?  Is it superior to other types of democracy?  Or is it inferior, due to corruption and law/rule breaking?

Posted
8 hours ago, webfact said:

let us acknowledge our truth

It's better to acknowledge the truth, to be honest.  Individual truths (I.e. objective opinions) are not as useful as this person proabbly thinks.

Posted
8 hours ago, h90 said:

27% is not the collective will.....

And a collective will is something scary anyway....There was done enough harm for the collective will from the right wing and the left wing in the past.

Some struggle and compromise might be less efficient but much safer

Whenever someone says "the will of the people" I am immediately uneasy.  It has shades of communism.  "Are you questioning the will of the people comrade?"

 

Reform is likely to be much more successful and beneficial than a revolution.  Revolutions have a habit of quickly being taken over and turning into dictatorships.

 

We only need to look at the recent democratic movement which was quickly co-opted and lost all direction.

  • Sad 1
Posted
8 hours ago, bamnutsak said:

the true spirit of Thai democracy.

Thai Democracy:  Whoever obtains power rigs the system in their favor.  <-- Reality

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Whenever someone says "the will of the people" I am immediately uneasy.  It has shades of communism.  "Are you questioning the will of the people comrade?"

Funny - the thought the exact same thing.

Posted
10 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Does anyone actually know what this is?

Not sure, the author's choice of phrase.

 

My guess? Aspirational, leaning more towards openness, transparency, equality. The current form of Thai democracy seems to favor the old guard. And the Head of State is not elected.

Posted

"The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy." Montesquieu.

 

It seems the military have round down the general Thai populace into a state of apathy - they have a chance to change things but they are letting the military-backed bureaucracy grind them down. there seems to be no "will of the people"
 

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Whenever someone says "the will of the people" I am immediately uneasy.  It has shades of communism.  "Are you questioning the will of the people comrade?"

Wow! I have the exact opposite response. And no fake quote needed.

 

Real Quote...

 

The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.

 

Thomas Jefferson

 

Edited by bamnutsak
  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Whenever someone says "the will of the people" I am immediately uneasy.  It has shades of communism.  "Are you questioning the will of the people comrade?"

 

Reform is likely to be much more successful and beneficial than a revolution.  Revolutions have a habit of quickly being taken over and turning into dictatorships.

 

We only need to look at the recent democratic movement which was quickly co-opted and lost all direction.

It is sad that people don't understand the word "communism" - and like woke, PC and other words it is used in a perverted form as a blanket "bete noire" by the uninformed.

Edited by kwilco
Posted
50 minutes ago, h90 said:

Question for you: an election in Farangland: one party wins by some real margin. The second and the third (which is really small in compare with the first) make a coalition and the third makes the PM....democratic and the will of the people? Happens and no one complains

Just as a comparison in 'Farangland:'  Truss and Sunak.  Was that "The Will Of The People?" 
Correct answer is "No" as The People, as in the total voting public, didn't have a say.

So here in Thailand?  For some reason we are suppose to believe that just because one party gets a majority of votes that get to elect the PM?  Thailand does have a Constitution (it's a Constitutional Monarchy) and like it or hate it, the current Constitution dictate how the PM is put into office.  Wanna change the Constitution (I thinks it's happened a number of times since I moved here) then form a coalition government powerful enough to make the change.

Like I stated above:  Thai Democracy - whoever gets into office attempts to rig the system in their own favor.
The Coup Leaders did a slam-bam job of that by the way.  Rigging it in their own favor.

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, kwilco said:

"The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy." Montesquieu.

True that, as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy creates a vacuum which allows for the tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy (and the tyranny of other forms of Totalitarianism - even those which govern with a iron-fist or a 'boot stamping on a human face - forever...... but yet call themselves 'democracies.').  DINOs.  Democracies In Name Only.  A pig wearing lipstick is still a pig.

They occur due to the apathy of citizens.

Edited by connda
Posted
9 minutes ago, kwilco said:

It is sad that people don't understand the word "communism" - and like woke, PC and other words it is used in a perverted form as a blanket "bete noire" by the uninformed.

It's sad that people lie about communism because they're mad at the fact that it doesn't work.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...