Abhisit Vejjajiva Elected New Prime Minister Of Thailand

[henryalleman]

Just to try and simplify things,

Basically, the government (in democratic countries) makes the laws. it is the responsibility of the police to enforce those laws, and ensure that they are up-held.

The chief of police reports to the Government, then the crown.

The role of the armed forces is to protect the Crown and all of its dependents, albeit countries or citizens, from both internal and external threats!

The chiefs of the armed forces report directly to the crown, in fact in the UK the Queen IS the head of the armed forces i believe.

FF

In WW1 and WW2 the monarch had no say at all in the military operations. She is only the honorary head of the army.

[henryalleman]

Go for it Chalerm

It would be like Cameron winning the elections for the Tories, and then Labour immediately announcing that their new leader was John Prescott

You gotta laugh

He looks more like a taxi cab driver than an opposition leader

Please , may I ask you kindly not to insult the cab drivers?

[Bangyai]

No, I have NEVER "herd of sarcasimn?" Is it like a herd of gazelle?

Interesting concept Herd Sarcasm one starts and the rest follow,

often right over the edge in to a real casm.

Hmmm.... Is a casm something like a chasm only 4/5 ths the size ?

I guess so, just as Wirat Musikapong is the seldom seen in public twin of

Veera Musikapong. Not many people know that

[Steve2UK]

Of course you can disagree with my statements, I never think I own the the truth. I only give my opinion for what's it worth. When I compare situations, most of the times I emphasize its a continental European view,and again its not meaning its a better system, only a different system.

at last i thank you for your compliment that I'm accepting correcting information.

And yes I was wrong a few times but it where honest mistakes. But please leave me some dignity and don't force me to go the way to Canossa every time I made one

I take the blame in silence and bow my head every time and give myself a ,and promise myself in vain to be more carefully the next time.

HA, you express these thoughts very elegantly and eloquently - IMO it should be required reading for TV members. And thank you for providing the opportunity for me to remind myself about the "Walk to Canossa" :jerk: . None of us should do penance for writing what we believe (unless it breaks forum rules and gets us a real from the Mods ) but all of us should have the courage, decency and sense to concede when it's shown we were wrong in what we wrote. Good to see someone use the word "dignity" here; I'm old-fashioned enough to still believe that it's really important and respecting it should call for people to exercise more courtesy in how they post. I have nothing against posts that are strongly even sharply worded - but that's a world away from the mocking and ridicule that some people see fit to heap on those with whom they disagree. As I've said before, anyone who posts even a few times on here will at some point be tempted to respond to (what they see as) an outrageous post with a snappy put-down of the writer rather than what is written and some of us have given in to the temptation (if that includes me then ) - but, again, that's a world away from doing it habitually........... which is just wilfully and serially inflammatory - and usually the mark of a TROLL.

End of sermon - and you are absolved, my son.

[henryalleman]

the poor will be allowed to vote, but their vote won't be worth spit!

In geographical vote EVERYBODY's vote will weigh less, poor, rich, no discrimination.

In occupational consituency vote weight would ideally depend on that person standing in the community. In that sense not every citizen's opinion will be equal, true.

In principle I think this is a more natural system.

When it comes to professional governing and law making, not everyone is equal, just like not everyone is an equally talented artist or musian or mathematician.

These days some 80% of the people can't be bothered to read the constitution, forget having valuable opinions on complex tax interest rate laws or policies.

Lawmakers and government ministers should come with relevant knowledge and experience. Geographically based system don't deliver that. At this point the solution for selecting ministers is to rely on PM's negotiating skills with his coalition partners, which has precious NOTHING to do with what people vote for.

Look, businessmen now loudly complain about Pua Paendin choice of Industry and Commerce ministers, and all Abhisit can say about it that it's their quota, there's nothing he can do anymore, they have to provide four ministers and there's no time left to negotiate over their legitimate choices.

Puea Paendin is a duly elected party but back in 2007 no one had any idea what their choice of Industry and Commerce would be for 2009. Perhaps people were attracted by their social development or agricultural team or whatever - the votes had nothing to do with what happens now.

This is not how it should work, the positions are too imporant for this shoddy selection process with absolutely no guarantee of acceptable results.

Perhaps the roles played by geographical/functional MPs need to be separated or clearly marked. Perhaps "functional" MPs need to put more input into Cabinet selection than current system of PM's choice coupled with party quotas.

Or, in the House itself, partly list MPs whould have different roles from constiuency based MPs.

Also the role of the Senate must be taken in consideretion. Perhaps functional MPs should belong there, as they are not politically affiliated and can serve as a balance. In fact the current Senate is already "new politics" compliant.

I, personally, think they Cabinet selection reform must be given the priority first.

n occupational consituency vote weight would ideally depend on that person standing in the community. In that sense not every citizen's opinion will be equal, true.

In principle I think this is a more natural system.

You give me the shivers.

In Europe people give their lives to brake this system.

[Publicus]

Abhisit ascendance was made possible because Thaksin managed to piss off Newin. Immediately Suthep, the Democrat power broker, has pounced on the opportunity and made approaches to Newin months ago.

I'd love to hear detailed explanations of what went wrong between Thaksin and Newin, who was his clear favourite not long time ago. Publicly Newin was snubbed during the second coming of Samak when Thaksin backed Newin's opponents in PPP headed by his sister and Yongyuth. But what drove Newin to push for Samak's return is anybody's guess.

I believe in the end Newin thought mostly for himself - there's no winning in sticking with Thaksin, he has better future being the all important king maker who is sought and feared by all sides.

For the country it's better if he supports Abhisit long enough to make ride through the crisis and finish off Thaksin. After that it's not really important who will be in the government, they'd all have to do exactly the same things - talk a lot, work a little, steal within reason. There's no sign of another Thaksin on the horison, no one to stir emotions, people will lose interest in politics and Thailand will be its usual self. Stable, laid back, with "let them live" attitude and lots of opportunities for everyone.

Analysis appreciated. I'd agree and share the curiousity regarding Newin. I'd also be pleased to declare in favor of the bottom line sentiment expressed in the post.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Publicus

[animatic]

Abhisit ascendance was made possible because Thaksin managed to piss off Newin. Immediately Suthep, the Democrat power broker, has pounced on the opportunity and made approaches to Newin months ago.

I'd love to hear detailed explanations of what went wrong between Thaksin and Newin, who was his clear favourite not long time ago. Publicly Newin was snubbed during the second coming of Samak when Thaksin backed Newin's opponents in PPP headed by his sister and Yongyuth. But what drove Newin to push for Samak's return is anybody's guess.

I believe in the end Newin thought mostly for himself - there's no winning in sticking with Thaksin, he has better future being the all important king maker who is sought and feared by all sides.

For the country it's better if he supports Abhisit long enough to make ride through the crisis and finish off Thaksin. After that it's not really important who will be in the government, they'd all have to do exactly the same things - talk a lot, work a little, steal within reason. There's no sign of another Thaksin on the horison, no one to stir emotions, people will lose interest in politics and Thailand will be its usual self. Stable, laid back, with "let them live" attitude and lots of opportunities for everyone.

This seems to match many of my observations.

there is no one with the charisma Thaksin had

AND the pre-requisit super deep pockets to go with it.

Right now is not the time for a 3rd coming of Thaksin's puppet army.

There IS a serious wind blowing in from abroad and stability needs to be priority #1.

And oddly pleasing Newin will likely be the best anti-Thaksin medicine for the NE.

Sustainable NE development even if it hurts,

will in the reasonably short term hurt LESS than

the not so palatable alternative of chaos and Thaksin led civil war.

Edited December 20, 2008 by animatic

[Steve2UK]

the poor will be allowed to vote, but their vote won't be worth spit!

In geographical vote EVERYBODY's vote will weigh less, poor, rich, no discrimination.

In occupational consituency vote weight would ideally depend on that person standing in the community. In that sense not every citizen's opinion will be equal, true.

In principle I think this is a more natural system.

When it comes to professional governing and law making, not everyone is equal, just like not everyone is an equally talented artist or musian or mathematician.

These days some 80% of the people can't be bothered to read the constitution, forget having valuable opinions on complex tax interest rate laws or policies.

Lawmakers and government ministers should come with relevant knowledge and experience. Geographically based system don't deliver that. At this point the solution for selecting ministers is to rely on PM's negotiating skills with his coalition partners, which has precious NOTHING to do with what people vote for.

Look, businessmen now loudly complain about Pua Paendin choice of Industry and Commerce ministers, and all Abhisit can say about it that it's their quota, there's nothing he can do anymore, they have to provide four ministers and there's no time left to negotiate over their legitimate choices.

Puea Paendin is a duly elected party but back in 2007 no one had any idea what their choice of Industry and Commerce would be for 2009. Perhaps people were attracted by their social development or agricultural team or whatever - the votes had nothing to do with what happens now.

This is not how it should work, the positions are too imporant for this shoddy selection process with absolutely no guarantee of acceptable results.

Perhaps the roles played by geographical/functional MPs need to be separated or clearly marked. Perhaps "functional" MPs need to put more input into Cabinet selection than current system of PM's choice coupled with party quotas.

Or, in the House itself, partly list MPs whould have different roles from constiuency based MPs.

Also the role of the Senate must be taken in consideretion. Perhaps functional MPs should belong there, as they are not politically affiliated and can serve as a balance. In fact the current Senate is already "new politics" compliant.

I, personally, think they Cabinet selection reform must be given the priority first.

n occupational consituency vote weight would ideally depend on that person standing in the community. In that sense not every citizen's opinion will be equal, true.

In principle I think this is a more natural system.

You give me the shivers.

In Europe people give their lives to brake this system.

Got to be careful here........ lately, I'm agreeing so much with HA that people may start to talk.

It gives me the shivers, too. Good to see a clearly stated proposition from Plus and the theory of it is superficially attractive - essentially (as I see it) to try and make the legislature representative of different interest groups and at the same time introduce areas of expertise into the body. The practice is entirely another matter - and I struggle to think of any example anywhere where it has operated without being massively abused very quickly and easily. Who gets to decide which citizen's opinion will carry more weight? Who guards the guardians? We're back to Orwell's "Animal Farm" - it moved very quickly from "4 legs bad, 2 legs good" to "Not all animals are created equal".

Many have quoted it here already, but Churchill was surely right about democracy (i.e. as in one citizen one vote) being inherently imperfect but overall least bad compared to all the alternatives.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Steve2UK

[Steve2UK]

Abhisit ascendance was made possible because Thaksin managed to piss off Newin. Immediately Suthep, the Democrat power broker, has pounced on the opportunity and made approaches to Newin months ago.

I'd love to hear detailed explanations of what went wrong between Thaksin and Newin, who was his clear favourite not long time ago. Publicly Newin was snubbed during the second coming of Samak when Thaksin backed Newin's opponents in PPP headed by his sister and Yongyuth. But what drove Newin to push for Samak's return is anybody's guess.

I believe in the end Newin thought mostly for himself - there's no winning in sticking with Thaksin, he has better future being the all important king maker who is sought and feared by all sides.

For the country it's better if he supports Abhisit long enough to make ride through the crisis and finish off Thaksin. After that it's not really important who will be in the government, they'd all have to do exactly the same things - talk a lot, work a little, steal within reason. There's no sign of another Thaksin on the horison, no one to stir emotions, people will lose interest in politics and Thailand will be its usual self. Stable, laid back, with "let them live" attitude and lots of opportunities for everyone.

This seems to match many of my observations.

there is no one with the charisma Thaksin had

AND the pre-requisit super deep pockets to go with it.

Right now is not the time for a 3rd coming of Thaksin's puppet army.

There IS a serious wind blowing in from abroad and stability needs to be priority #1.

And oddly pleasing Newin will likely be the best anti-Thaksin medicine for the NE.

Sustainable NE development even if it hurts,

will in the reasonably short term hurt LESS than

the not so palatable alternative of chaos and Thaksin led civil war.

Animatic, through a less-than-perfect use of quoting, Publicus' post made it difficult to see (accidentally, I'm sure) that the body of it is not his/her post - and your re-quoting makes it look like it is. In fact it's from Plus. Perhaps the Mods can fix the original quotes in Publicus' post?

That said, I agree with Publicus and you that Plus' analysis looks spot on. I don't like it and wish it weren't so - but I do agree with it as being what we can expect to see happen.

[Richard W]

NO, in Constitutional European monarchies the title of Supreme Commander-in-chief GIVEN to the monarch is just an honorary title. The highest military rank is chief of staff, who is following orders of the minister of defence ergo the government. Even in war time the monarch is not an acting commander -in-chief. <snip>

I will agree that monarchs do well to consider an example of what can happen if exercising the post. But then, dismissing prime ministers is also dangerous, as we have seen in Australia, and as, moving away from legality, the Thai Army has decided.

[Plus]

Last year's NLA was a good example, absolutely incomparable to PPP led parliament that hasn't produce anything of substance. Those appointed guys were Energiser Bunnies on steroids by comparison.

And they snubbed Surayud's government on several occasions, there were not military puppets in any sense.

That's what happens when you put professionals to work.

I agree that their nomination process was undemocratic - they proposed themselves and got appointed by military installed commitee.

The challenge is how to put them in parliament through democratic means and make them answerable to the voters, but the country definitely needs people of their calibre in charge, passionately caring about their prospective fields and ready to stand up for what they think is right.

To achieve that new constituency boundaries need to be drawn, occupation/social group based, so that lawyers would vote for lawyers, farmers for farmers, small retailers for small retailers, big retailers for big retailers and so on.

They can be voted in or out, but there will ALWAYS be someone representing their sector.

From the voter perspective - you have to be a member of "functional" consituency to vote, you can be member of several constituencies if you qualify, or you can find that there's no consituency for 40 yo layabouts who only care about drinking themsleves to stupor everyday. Tough luck. Sober up and get a job.

[younghusband]

To achieve that new constituency boundaries need to be drawn, occupation/social group based, so that lawyers would vote for lawyers, farmers for farmers, small retailers for small retailers, big retailers for big retailers and so on.

They can be voted in or out, but there will ALWAYS be someone representing their sector.

From the voter perspective - you have to be a member of "functional" consituency to vote, you can be member of several constituencies if you qualify, or you can find that there's no consituency for 40 yo layabouts who only care about drinking themsleves to stupor everyday. Tough luck. Sober up and get a job.

Ok very interesting.But how does all this gather some traction? Abhisit doesn't appear to give this any priority, possibly because it's political dynamite.

So my question is - what are the steps to put some version of all this into place?

[Steve2UK]

<snip>

Got to be careful here........ lately, I'm agreeing so much with HA that people may start to talk.

It gives me the shivers, too. Good to see a clearly stated proposition from Plus and the theory of it is superficially attractive - essentially (as I see it) to try and make the legislature representative of different interest groups and at the same time introduce areas of expertise into the body. The practice is entirely another matter - and I struggle to think of any example anywhere where it has operated without being massively abused very quickly and easily. Who gets to decide which citizen's opinion will carry more weight? Who guards the guardians? We're back to Orwell's "Animal Farm" - it moved very quickly from "4 legs bad, 2 legs good" to "Not all animals are created equal".

Many have quoted it here already, but Churchill was surely right about democracy (i.e. as in one citizen one vote) being inherently imperfect but overall least bad compared to all the alternatives.

Apologies for quoting my own post - but only to make an even greater apology for getting the first Orwell quote a_s about face........ It should, of course, be "4 legs good, 2 legs bad".

Oh, the shame.........

[Ulysses G.]

I know you mean that 70/30 thing, but it is impossible to bend it that way that it means the poor shouldn't be able to vote.

I don't agree with that 70/30 idea but the poor won't be allowed to vote is a plain propaganda lie.

Yes, the poor will be allowed to vote, but their vote won't be worth spit! What is the difference?

as always complete nonsense.....

Please educate yourself a little bit before you just post something wrong.

(beside that I don't like that 30/70 system much, a clear proportional system would be better)

I'm educated enough to know that it won't be the poor appointing their so-called "representatives".

By the way congratulations on finally passing your GED!

Edited December 20, 2008 by Ulysses G.

[wayfarer108]

I know you mean that 70/30 thing, but it is impossible to bend it that way that it means the poor shouldn't be able to vote.

I don't agree with that 70/30 idea but the poor won't be allowed to vote is a plain propaganda lie.

Yes, the poor will be allowed to vote, but their vote won't be worth spit! What is the difference?

Many Thai thinkers -- not just the Pad -- are suggesting an electoral system where candidates run as representatives of differing geographic and/or economic/professional/trade sectors of the population.

Furthermore many countries around the world which have bicameral legislative bodies use one house -- often the more powerful house, at least for certain kinds of legislation -- as a way to reserve representation for certain societal groups and/or to place a further check on the power of the lower house.

Belgium is a good example, with a partially appointed Parliament (Senate made up of 40 directly elected politicians and 21 representatives appointed by the 3 community parliaments, 10 coopted senators and the children of the king; Chamber's 150 reps elected under a proportional voting system from 11 electoral districts). In Luxembourg one entire chamber is appointed, one elected. Germany's Bundesrat is appointed by the respective state governments, and it has the final say in disputes among states and between the states and the federal government. Last I checked, the UK didn't elect its House of Lords either.

Other examples include Argentina, Austria, Belize, Canada ('members of the Senate, whose seats are apportioned on a regional basis, are chosen by the Prime Minister and formally appointed by the Governor General, and serve until age 75'), India and Jordan.

UG, even your own USofA has indirect presidential and vice presidential elections where delegates represent the states, not the entire American population. American presidential elections are effectively an amalgamation of 51 separate and simultaneous elections (50 states plus the District of Columbia), rather than a single national election.

The Pad is not a political party but a protest movement led by a coalition of NGOs and state labour unions calling for political change in the belief that majoritarian democracy doesn't work in Thailand. Outside the Alliance, many respected Thai thinkers, eg, Dr Prawase Wasi, Dr Chai-anan Samudavanija and Sulak Sivaraksa, are also advocates of a proportional electoral approach.

Thaksin/TRT/PPP/PTP/etc, meanwhile, have a vested interest in maintaining majoritarian elections, since they are readily manipulated through payoffs and patronage. The Democrats do as well, in times when they carry the vote. There are alternatives where more sectors of society are invested with political power, in which the majority do not dominate the minority and where the MPs represent a broader cross-section of society.

[wayfarer108]

I know you mean that 70/30 thing, but it is impossible to bend it that way that it means the poor shouldn't be able to vote.

I don't agree with that 70/30 idea but the poor won't be allowed to vote is a plain propaganda lie.

Yes, the poor will be allowed to vote, but their vote won't be worth spit! What is the difference?

as always complete nonsense.....

Please educate yourself a little bit before you just post something wrong.

(beside that I don't like that 30/70 system much, a clear proportional system would be better)

I'm educated enough to know that it won't be the poor appointing their so-called "representatives".

By the way congratulations on finally passing your GED!

The poor shouldn't dominate the rich any more than the rich should dominate the poor. Besides, around 63% of Thai voters did not support

the PPP. Thus, PPP claims that they represent the majority of Thai citizens are false. Either way I don't think you can say that the poor had their say or received their due when the ABT/headman patronage system directs their votes and the TRT's populist programs put them further in debt.

Edited December 20, 2008 by wayfarer108

[Steve2UK]

No, I have NEVER "herd of sarcasimn?" Is it like a herd of gazelle?

Interesting concept Herd Sarcasm one starts and the rest follow,

often right over the edge in to a real casm.

We are social lemmings cleaving to a group to feel like

our fears are not felt in a vacuum.

Of course fears make groups demean the opposition philosophy's adherents,

or a directed perceived object of fear, and so like lemmings continue beyond all reasonings

to justify large baseless hates to remain part of the group.

Us vs Them political divide and conquier. One of the age old technics to hold

or extract power from the body politic.

I see what appears much the same in TVF.

Once you have staked out a territory you NEVER back track,

never consider exentuations, never consider new info.

ONLY repeat ad nausium the same thought self-re-enforcing patterns that

convienantly validate your earlier feelings.

Why change with the buzz feels good and there is a validation of your beliefs.

.

Animatic - greetings .

IMO, much truth in what you write here - an interesting insight. Taking you at your word, may I suggest that your observations would carry more weight if you also included your view of those posting as per the quote you excerpted at the beginning of your own post - which comes from the same member who several times gratuitously quoted "silent coupe (sic)" in post after post [all but the first instance have now been deleted by Mods - along with whatever actual/valid points were being made by that writer].

I am personally not well disposed to the use of such highly emotive terms as "Nazi" out of their original context - e.g. "Grammar Nazi". Colourful it may be, but I find that kind of purple prose distasteful and inherently distorting - aside from the fact that I have personal (i.e. family) reasons for not wanting to see it misused (i.e. out of context) and thereby IMO devalued. Perhaps that's seen by some as a "bias" - but I don't allow it to blind me.

It follows that I am not happy that a TV member would use a Sondhi-Hitler picture collage as an avatar - any more than I see any value in other members posting less than flattering pictures of Abhisit from university or campaigning days, repeatedly raising questions about a Thaksin daughter's sexuality or seeing fit to mock another member's typing mistake or language error......... and so on and so on. To me these are all reprehensible and usually say more about the writer than they illuminate any point he/she may be trying to make. More importantly, to varying extents maybe, they must inherently devalue otherwise potentially valid points made in the same post or elsewhere by the same member. Tedious to repeat it but - so much heat and so little light.

Returning to your later points, I find myself wondering whether some posters have a mirror next to the computer and confuse the two when they write accusing others of (blinding) bias. You wrote once: "Have bias, will scrawl". It's a telling phrase - and very, very neat - but I think we do well to distinguish between having a point of view (and working with/from that) and real bias in the sense of being so blinded by it that we (often wilfully, it seems) block out another "point of view" and/or source of information to consider. From what you say, I infer that you see yourself as receptive to and ready to take on board other views and the information included to support them. I would certainly hope that's true in the fact as well as the claim - it's certainly a trait that I endorse 100% and try to operate for myself in developing my own perspective.

P.S. I actually took your spelling of "casm" as a clever play on words from "sarcasm". But that's perhaps just another bias of mine coming out....... loving what language can do and putting it through its paces.

[h90]

I know you mean that 70/30 thing, but it is impossible to bend it that way that it means the poor shouldn't be able to vote.

I don't agree with that 70/30 idea but the poor won't be allowed to vote is a plain propaganda lie.

Yes, the poor will be allowed to vote, but their vote won't be worth spit! What is the difference?

as always complete nonsense.....

Please educate yourself a little bit before you just post something wrong.

(beside that I don't like that 30/70 system much, a clear proportional system would be better)

I'm educated enough to know that it won't be the poor appointing their so-called "representatives".

By the way congratulations on finally passing your GED!

I know you won't pick it up and you'll continue to post lies, but I try to explain again.

The initial idea, and it wasn't more than an idea from brainstorming was:

You have basically elections like now (more or less) but they fill only a part of the parliament: what you call the 30 % elected one.

The poor the rich, farmers and bank manager vote the same.

That 70 % (and 70 was just an idea) get ELECTED within their profession, like the rice farmer elect someone out of their community, the academics elect someone, the state labor elect someone, the factory labor elect someone from their own.

As there are more rice farmer than academics they will elect more MPs than academics. So everyone is elected, the same for the poor and for the rich.

Actually now the poor have no democratic rights, they loose their rights for 200 Baht and I don't see one MP representing poor rice farmer in the Parliament.

I doubt that this 70/30 idea will help much, but it is not undemocratic and that "the poor will not be allowed to vote" is a plain lie intended to seed hate between people.

[Crushdepth]

NO, in Constitutional European monarchies the title of Supreme Commander-in-chief GIVEN to the monarch is just an honorary title. The highest military rank is chief of staff, who is following orders of the minister of defence ergo the government. Even in war time the monarch is not an acting commander -in-chief. <snip>

I will agree that monarchs do well to consider an example of what can happen if exercising the post. But then, dismissing prime ministers is also dangerous, as we have seen in Australia, and as, moving away from legality, the Thai Army has decided.

The role of the monarch varies between countries - but it is not always 'just' an honorary title. While it's true that Queen Elizabeth (or her nominal reprentative in Australia, the Governer General) have no role in 'marshalling the troops', this position is entrusted to them as a safety net. In the event of a (severe) internal crisis you may find that they can step in to stop the government doing crazy things, and a desperate public would support them, but its as much a moral as legal authority.

I don't think the powers of the head of state in the UK are clearly defined. They are in Australia, but even there a lot of the Governer Generals 'recognised' powers actually stem from convention (what previous Governer Generals decided to do) rather than from the constitution. There's always room for a new precedent to be set, and I think a government that ordered the army to slaughter civilians would suddently discover that the head of state was in fact the top of the food chain.

[Steve2UK]

Last year's NLA was a good example, absolutely incomparable to PPP led parliament that hasn't produce anything of substance. Those appointed guys were Energiser Bunnies on steroids by comparison.

And they snubbed Surayud's government on several occasions, there were not military puppets in any sense.

That's what happens when you put professionals to work.

I agree that their nomination process was undemocratic - they proposed themselves and got appointed by military installed commitee.

The challenge is how to put them in parliament through democratic means and make them answerable to the voters, but the country definitely needs people of their calibre in charge, passionately caring about their prospective fields and ready to stand up for what they think is right.

To achieve that new constituency boundaries need to be drawn, occupation/social group based, so that lawyers would vote for lawyers, farmers for farmers, small retailers for small retailers, big retailers for big retailers and so on.

They can be voted in or out, but there will ALWAYS be someone representing their sector.

From the voter perspective - you have to be a member of "functional" consituency to vote, you can be member of several constituencies if you qualify, or you can find that there's no consituency for 40 yo layabouts who only care about drinking themsleves to stupor everyday. Tough luck. Sober up and get a job.

On the surface and in theory, I think there's a lot to like in this notion - but, as ever, the devil lies in the detail and making it work in practice. One major caveat: I would rather see "people of their calibre involved" rather than "in charge" - but perhaps I'm taking "in charge" too literally.

I would like to see a workable proposal for "how to put them in parliament through democratic means" with sufficient checks and balances to ensure that it would be and stay democratic in a meaningful sense of the term. To take the example of lawyers: within their professional bodies (e.g. in the UK the Law Society and in the US the various bar associations), there already seems to be considerable pressure from above on members to "toe the line" if they want to advance to senior positions e.g. partner status, judgeships etc. Of course, not all succumb to the pressure - either because of their own belief in staying independent or because they simply don't care about advancement. In the UK, this has often come down to whether someone is considered to be the "right sort" by the powers that be or as Margaret Thatcher memorably put it: "Is he one of us?".

It strikes me that this situation is probably less likely to occur with more open/scattered groups like, say, farmers - but I can see it occurring much the same way as for lawyers with, say, doctors and academics - having an eye on advancement to an internship, professorship, deanship, department headship etc..... all in the gift of more powers that be.

As noted elsewhere, seats in the UK House of Lords have long been anything but democratically filled. From being a chamber where membership derived solely from an accident of birth or at the whim of the sovereign to create a peer, it evolved to include members inserted by the government/opposition parties or recommended by the "great and the good" for inclusion in the sovereign's honours list (often including senior civil servants, academics, lawyers etc regarded as leaders in their fields). Under the present Labour government, it has evolved further to reduce the number of hereditary peers to (if I remember right) now just 90 - with all the others appointed (bishops are also members - Lords Spiritual - by virtue of their Church office). By and large, it has worked quite well - with most of the peers accepting that their powers are effectively limited to being a revising chamber. Even so, there have been quite a few occasions when they have managed in practice to block the more extreme legislation passed by the Commons MP's - whichever government was in power. It should be added that the government has the Parliament Act at its disposal which allows the Lords vote to be overridden - but both sides tend to regard this as "going nuclear" and will do almost anything to avoid it.

So - a quirky kind of a system that has been through various transitions to get to where it is today and somehow seems to work (in a very British sort of way). Interestingly, the armed forces don't get a look in - except when a very senior officer genuinely retires and might get made a peer. Which leads me to another question in the Thai context. I assume the military would need to have representation based on their being a major professional/functional group? If lawyers, doctors, academics etc will have an eye on their professional advancement - what are the chances a military representative will not do likewise?

Many details and, given the Thai context, so many devils............

N.B. I really hope that we may have now reached the stage where the points I've raised don't trigger a deluge of usual suspect posts saying "So - you think the current corrupt system is so great, do you?". Would be good not to have any more of that irrational clap-trap.

[ballpoint]

I know you mean that 70/30 thing, but it is impossible to bend it that way that it means the poor shouldn't be able to vote.

I don't agree with that 70/30 idea but the poor won't be allowed to vote is a plain propaganda lie.

Yes, the poor will be allowed to vote, but their vote won't be worth spit! What is the difference?

as always complete nonsense.....

Please educate yourself a little bit before you just post something wrong.

(beside that I don't like that 30/70 system much, a clear proportional system would be better)

I'm educated enough to know that it won't be the poor appointing their so-called "representatives".

By the way congratulations on finally passing your GED!

I know you won't pick it up and you'll continue to post lies, but I try to explain again.

The initial idea, and it wasn't more than an idea from brainstorming was:

You have basically elections like now (more or less) but they fill only a part of the parliament: what you call the 30 % elected one.

The poor the rich, farmers and bank manager vote the same.

That 70 % (and 70 was just an idea) get ELECTED within their profession, like the rice farmer elect someone out of their community, the academics elect someone, the state labor elect someone, the factory labor elect someone from their own.

As there are more rice farmer than academics they will elect more MPs than academics. So everyone is elected, the same for the poor and for the rich.

Actually now the poor have no democratic rights, they loose their rights for 200 Baht and I don't see one MP representing poor rice farmer in the Parliament.

I doubt that this 70/30 idea will help much, but it is not undemocratic and that "the poor will not be allowed to vote" is a plain lie intended to seed hate between people.

I think many are forgetting one important thing: the poor will never be fairly represented until the shameful law that states only those with a university degree are able to run for parliament is repealed. I didn't see that great saviour of the poor (what a dangerous myth that has become) even talking about doing so in all the years he was in power.

[jdinasia]

Why is it bad to have a minimum requirement of holding a degree to be an MP?

Do you think it is bad that teaching needs a degree?

[Steve2UK]

I think many are forgetting one important thing: the poor will never be fairly represented until the shameful law that states only those with a university degree are able to run for parliament is repealed. I didn't see that great saviour of the poor (what a dangerous myth that has become) even talking about doing so in all the years he was in power.

I totally agree. To be honest, I didn't know that it's a requirement and I suspect many others didn't until you raised it, but I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise - given Thailand's fixation with having a degree (even a "you're sure not to fail" bought-and-paid-for one) for just about any "white collar" job.

It begs the question how large the pool of rice farmers available to be MP's can be. Bus-drivers, taxi-drivers, food stall owners, labourers, maids and so on? What about the mature, self-educated individual who has the respect of his peers i.e. otherwise worthy - but can't stand/run simply because he doesn't have the degree? That applies under the current system - all the more relevant under a new function-oriented system as outlined by Plus above?

As to comparing this to teachers requiring a degree to teach? It's difficult to think of many academic situations where the student would not expect the teacher to have a higher qualification than the student has. A language-learning assistant maybe? A mechanic learning a trade or skill from a seasoned professional, perhaps. An officer cadet being taught by an experienced sergeant. But I struggle to think of other examples - and none in a recognisably academic context which is largely about gaining qualifications.

[Old Man River]

I think many are forgetting one important thing: the poor will never be fairly represented until the shameful law that states only those with a university degree are able to run for parliament is repealed. I didn't see that great saviour of the poor (what a dangerous myth that has become) even talking about doing so in all the years he was in power.

I totally agree. To be honest, I didn't know that it's a requirement and I suspect many others didn't until you raised it, but I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise - given Thailand's fixation with having a degree (even a "you're sure not to fail" bought-and-paid-for one) for just about any "white collar" job.

I have no idea what the qualifications are in my country. Do you know what they are in your country? I would be surprised if they aren't similar.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Old Man River

[Splatter]

Why is it bad to have a minimum requirement of holding a degree to be an MP?

Do you think it is bad that teaching needs a degree?

JD, I think we'd both agree that to be a reasonably competent politician

you need a fairly good level of education, knowledge and developed reasoning skills.

A university education is one way of setting someone on the path to this,

and a university degree may be a helpful indicator of someone's competence in certain areas.

However, if the requirement for a degree existed in the UK

we would have missed out on some of the most influential and visionary politicians

in the modern era.

Aneurin Bevan is one example; a son of a miner who left school at 13

and was only later given a scholarship to study at a college

that got his formal educational up to university ENTRY standards.

[Ulysses G.]

I doubt that this 70/30 idea will help much, but it is not undemocratic and that "the poor will not be allowed to vote" is a plain lie intended to seed hate between people.

You already don't think it will work and we have not even gone into about a million reasons why.

To me, it just sounds like one will have to pay off the elected representatives instead of the voters and that is no kind of progress. It all sounds like what we called a big clusterfcuk when I was in the military.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Ulysses G.

[ballpoint]

Why is it bad to have a minimum requirement of holding a degree to be an MP?

Do you think it is bad that teaching needs a degree?

I am amazed that anyone would ask that. How many Isan youths have the chance for a university education? How many rich youths have bought or cheated their way to degrees? Isan children are taught their place in the world from the day they start school, assuming they actually go to school, and that place is at the bottom of the heap, obeying their "betters" without question. They learn the self deprecating ways of refering to themselves and the kowtowing ways of addressing the rich and powerful. The degree requirement is simply another way of keeping them in that place. Sure, the lucky few may apply for a scholarship to some provincial university, but millions more won't.

Why does having a degree make you a better teacher anyhow?

[ballpoint]

I think many are forgetting one important thing: the poor will never be fairly represented until the shameful law that states only those with a university degree are able to run for parliament is repealed. I didn't see that great saviour of the poor (what a dangerous myth that has become) even talking about doing so in all the years he was in power.

I totally agree. To be honest, I didn't know that it's a requirement and I suspect many others didn't until you raised it, but I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise - given Thailand's fixation with having a degree (even a "you're sure not to fail" bought-and-paid-for one) for just about any "white collar" job.

I have no idea what the qualifications are in my country. Do you know what they are in your country? I would be surprised if they aren't similar.

I think you'll find in most western countries, and some other Asian ones, that the only requirement is you aren't a criminal, and not certified as insane (if only Thailand had that requirement). If you're smart enough to get a party nomination and enough votes then you're in. In any case, you can't equate a western system, where anyone able to can go to university, with Thailand, where a great many clever people would never have the chance to. I also find degree snobbery to be no different than any other kind, and before you ask I have a post graduate science degree, so I'm not jealous of all you university educated people. Why does spending three or more years attending lectures make you a better candidate than spending the same length of time holding down a job?

Edited December 20, 2008 by ballpoint

[Meerkat]

The requirement for MPs to have a degree has – thankfully – been taken out with the introduction of the 2007 constitution (one of my few "Hurrahs" to the junta). It does remain in force for cabinet members however. So no “John Major” of Thailand then [nor a Nye Bevan as Splatter has posted]. It may still also be in force for Senators - someone correct me if I'm wrong on that bit though.

As to why it's a bad thing, holding a degree in no way means that one is brighter than someone who doesn't hold one. It also in no way means that one is better “equipped” to represent the people, whether as an MP, Minister, or PM.

There was a study done five years ago or so (could have been UNESCO, but I'm not sure), which highlighted the wealth disparity here specifically as manifested in the breakdown of uni students and the wealth of their families. No surprise that the vast majority of students came from wealthier families (and the study didn't take those – even wealthier – families that could afford to send their children to foreign unis into consideration. Add those and the numbers become even more skewed). Indeed it showed that it was all but impossible for many poorer families to send their children to uni at all (again from memory the entire income of many families was less than that required to send just one child to uni; paying living costs, replacing the student's work at home etc).

Thus the requirement in one fell swoop effectively barred around two-thirds of the population from attaining office, and that two-thirds or so was disproportionately weighted towards the “poor”, but not necessarily away from the "smart".

Good riddance to it, and may the cabinet requirement go the same way too. The only requirement to represent the people should be the requirement to persuade the people to vote for you (and stay within the law of course).

[ballpoint]

The requirement for MPs to have a degree has – thankfully – been taken out with the introduction of the 2007 constitution (one of my few "Hurrahs" to the junta). It does remain in force for cabinet members however. So no "John Major" of Thailand then [nor a Nye Bevan as Splatter has posted]. It may still also be in force for Senators - someone correct me if I'm wrong on that bit though.

As to why it's a bad thing, holding a degree in no way means that one is brighter than someone who doesn't hold one. It also in no way means that one is better "equipped" to represent the people, whether as an MP, Minister, or PM.

There was a study done five years ago or so (could have been UNESCO, but I'm not sure), which highlighted the wealth disparity here specifically as manifested in the breakdown of uni students and the wealth of their families. No surprise that the vast majority of students came from wealthier families (and the study didn't take those – even wealthier – families that could afford to send their children to foreign unis into consideration. Add those and the numbers become even more skewed). Indeed it showed that it was all but impossible for many poorer families to send their children to uni at all (again from memory the entire income of many families was less than that required to send just one child to uni; paying living costs, replacing the student's work at home etc).

Thus the requirement in one fell swoop effectively barred around two-thirds of the population from attaining office, and that two-thirds or so was disproportionately weighted towards the "poor", but not necessarily away from the "smart".

Good riddance to it, and may the cabinet requirement go the same way too. The only requirement to represent the people should be the requirement to persuade the people to vote for you (and stay within the law of course).

That's good news, and I stand corrected. Shame it wasn't more advertised though, recently I was having this conversation in the Isan village I live with a group including the headman and a couple of Or-Bor-Tor, and they all assured me the degree was still necessary. I'll have to educate them. Unfortunately, it will still take a while, if ever, for the poor to trickle through.