Five Coalition Parties Announce Go-ahead To Amend Constitution

[george]

Five coalition parties announce go-ahead to amend Constitution

BANGKOK: -- Five coalition parties allied with Thailand's Abhisit Vejjajiva government announced on Tuesday that a motion to amend the constitution will be presented to the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

The announcement was made jointly by leaders of five junior coalition parties--Chavarat Charnvirakul of Bhumjaithai, Chumpol Silpa-archa of Chart Thai Pattana, Charnchai Chairungruang of Puea Pandin, Wannarat Charnnukul of Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana, and Suwit Khunkitti of the Social Action party--after meeting at a Bangkok hotel.

Mr Chumpol told a press conference afterward that the five parties agreed to try to amend Article 94 on the electoral system to move to a one-MP constituency election system and Article 190 which requires the government to seek parliamentary approval before signing international agreements.

He said the single-MP system would benefit the people more than a multi-MP constituency system as voters would have an equal right to for one MP and it would be easy to monitor the vote buying.

Members of parliament would have closer relations to the voters in their constituencies, he said.

As for Article 190, Mr Chumpol said the requirement did not clearly detail which agreements must be approved, and which was not under the requirement.

The lack of detail reduced the benefit and damaged Thailand's dignity in the international arena, and should be changed to make the constitution work more effectively, he said.

Mr Chumpol said the five parties already had more than one-fifth of MPs in the House backing the motion as required by the constitution however, the five parties still hope to get support from the Democrat Party, the main coalition part, and senators to get the amendment done.

The five parties are set to submit the motion to the House Speaker Chai Chidchob Wednesday at 10am.

Democrat Party executives meeting last month resolved not to join the move to amend the constitution with other coalition parties but once the motion is filed in the House, its MPs will decide whether to vote for or against the motion.

-- TNA 2010-02-02

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[animatic]

A save face move.

Banharn already said he will back the Dems but is disappointed.

[Old Man River]

Easier to monitor vote buying? Try easier to buy votes instead.

[SomTumTiger]

These fellas keep trying to ice skate uphill.

[animatic]

Worse,

they keep trying to make water run uphill

and then freeze it in place!

[slimdog]

Easier to monitor vote buying? Try easier to buy votes instead.

Different people have different views on this.

For the people who support the larger constituencies, they mention that with three times the number of voters, vote buying becomes more expensive, and therefore having a large constituency actually reduces the feasibility of vote buying.

For people who support the smaller constituencies, they mention that with just a single vote, people are likely to use this more discerningly, and this reduces the effectiveness of vote buying.

There was a lot of talk about vote buying in the mid 90's when they were drafting the new Constitution. The arguement for adopting the smaller constituencies, was that research showed that voters nearly always used their first vote for the individual or party that they supported, the second mostly went to the party that they supported, but the final vote they could be persuaded either by fame (mostly actors and actresses), money or simple peer pressure (Puu Yai, Commanding Officer, village head etc).

This is also supported by results in by-elections. These are nearly always for single seats, and yet the instances where red or yellow cards are issued in a by-election are almost unheard of.

[CLOD]

At last, some leadership.

[animatic]

At last, some leadership.

Ah yes, real leadership:

to roll back the election laws and allow greater graft,

and put the coalition in jeopardy for smaller partisan interests and greed.

Leadership I am sure you can sign on to,

if it helps bring back your pseudo demi-god puyai Thaksin!

Edited February 3, 2010 by animatic

[jdinasia]

Actually, to me these amendments don't seem too bad.

I can foresee some people complaining that before the elctorate could vote for 3 people and now they can only vote for one and are thus being 'disenfranchised'! This obviously wouldn't be true but it won't stop people from saying it!

I like the idea of looking at a particular area on the map and seeing the real vote count for 0ne person elected out of that area.

Defining the International agreements section could probably be done in Parliament without having to amend the charter but would then be open to more litigation. Spelling it out more in detail in the constitution might not be so bad.

Moving from a 3 seat constituency -- where selling off your votes number 2 and 3 allows people to push a lesser candidate onto other people nearby just seems wrong to me. Does the proposed change eliminate vote buying? No .. but it should drive up the cost of a vote AND it should make some vote buying obvious when it is in a district that would normally vote a different way.

[animatic]

JD if only it was as simple as just setting the country to one person on vote for one candidate in a district.

Sadly opening up the process also opens it up to last second unforeseen,

or at least un-announced in advance changes, and that is the real worry.

This is why the bar to constitutional changes is set so high in USA and most other countries.

To prevent self serving and/or frivolous changes in basic charter language.

[Siripon]

It's far cheaper to buy votes in a one MP one constituency system, Banharn complained it was expensive to canvas for 3 candidates when only one or two had a reasonable chance, but money can be saved by printing the 3 candidates' names on one poster.

It will be interesting to see if Banharn etc can strike a deal with Pheua Thai and support Dr Weng's proposal to go back to the 1997 constitution (to absolve Thaksin of the charges he is facing), but in that scenario surely Apisit would dissolve Parliament, so I can't see it happening.

[jdinasia]

JD if only it was as simple as just setting the country to one person on vote for one candidate in a district.

Sadly opening up the process also opens it up to last second unforeseen,

or at least un-announced in advance changes, and that is the real worry.

This is why the bar to constitutional changes is set so high in USA and most other countries.

To prevent self serving and/or frivolous changes in basic charter language.

This isn't the US, where there is a long history of checks and balances.

I can see the argument that it might cost more to buy votes in a 3 member constituency but I don't think that is a 'given' since votes 2 and 3 can be bought cheaper (I would assume). The argument for a 1 vote constituency would be that people who would sell votes 2 and 3 but not vote #1 (the vote for THIER guy) won't have those votes to sell. It would also suggest that the people stuck in a larger constituency might in fact have their vote diminished compared to voting in a smaller constituency. It is hard to deny that there is more true representation for locals in a smaller constituency.

[RKASA]

The parliamentary system is the source of waste, fraud and abuse of power. You can't fix stupid, it just is.

[hammered]

The Asia Institute survey which didnt get much publicity in Thailand showed a majority of people thought vote buying would effect election outcome

Of course it is cheaper to but a single seat constituency.

It is worthwhile spending time in rural constituencies during an election to see what happens. It is equally worth looking at who stands and who doesnt in these constituencies and who has and hasnt over a long period and who these people are linked to. Town based constituencies are more competatetive, less controlled and less dangerous and far mor elike what someone form a western democracy would expect.

Indeed it will be interesting to see if Banharn can convince PTP to back his ideas or if he can be convinced to back theirs. That however gets close to the big big red line for another player - not the Dems. My guess is that as Banharn is a player and wants back he wont go the whole hog and join the bring back the people's constitution - which though labelled as such didnt give the people as many rights and protections as 2007, wasnt put to the people and for which anyone in the know the grassroots people were never even consutled over, intersting spin by one section of the ruling elite though. Banharn is likely not to want to risk permanently being removed from politics until well after his death by crossing the powerful groups red line. For now though he enjoys the limelight and some bargaining power.

[Ricardo]

At last, some leadership.

Yes, but isn't it a pity, it didn't come from the Opposition in Parliament ? They seem to be missing their opportunity, to show that they have ideas of their own, preferring to do nothing at all instead.

[hammered]

At last, some leadership.

Yes, but isn't it a pity, it didn't come from the Opposition in Parliament ? They seem to be missing their opportunity, to show that they have ideas of their own, preferring to do nothing at all instead.

What do you expect they didnt do a single thing legisltaively to run the country when in power. They went through a full parliamentary session without even settign up the committees neede dot enable parlaiment to function which was a record for Thailand! There was also a lot of time limted legislation of a non-controversial kind that they just ignored etc. It really was the worst government ever in terms of not doing anything

[h90]

For me that does not look good.

If the Democrats let it go, they loose face.

Now might be the right time to call for new elections.

[animatic]

At last, some leadership.

Yes, but isn't it a pity, it didn't come from the Opposition in Parliament ? They seem to be missing their opportunity, to show that they have ideas of their own, preferring to do nothing at all instead.

What do you expect they didnt do a single thing legisltaively to run the country when in power. They went through a full parliamentary session without even settign up the committees neede dot enable parlaiment to function which was a record for Thailand! There was also a lot of time limted legislation of a non-controversial kind that they just ignored etc. It really was the worst government ever in terms of not doing anything

Ditto, and so bad that

most anything legal is warranted to prevent their return to.... inaction...

[Samuian]

Easier to monitor vote buying? Try easier to buy votes instead.

Different people have different views on this.

For the people who support the larger constituencies, they mention that with three times the number of voters, vote buying becomes more expensive, and therefore having a large constituency actually reduces the feasibility of vote buying.

For people who support the smaller constituencies, they mention that with just a single vote, people are likely to use this more discerningly, and this reduces the effectiveness of vote buying.

There was a lot of talk about vote buying in the mid 90's when they were drafting the new Constitution. The arguement for adopting the smaller constituencies, was that research showed that voters nearly always used their first vote for the individual or party that they supported, the second mostly went to the party that they supported, but the final vote they could be persuaded either by fame (mostly actors and actresses), money or simple peer pressure (Puu Yai, Commanding Officer, village head etc).

This is also supported by results in by-elections. These are nearly always for single seats, and yet the instances where red or yellow cards are issued in a by-election are almost unheard of.

Just look at WHO supports this move - and you have the answer on a silver tray!

Why has it (The Constitution) been changed AFTER the man with a overwhelming majority was all of a sudden ruling

without a possible challenge!

And the very same supporters, today are accusing this government of a dictatorship?

Isn't that more than highly sarcastic?

[scorecard]

Easier to monitor vote buying? Try easier to buy votes instead.

Different people have different views on this.

For the people who support the larger constituencies, they mention that with three times the number of voters, vote buying becomes more expensive, and therefore having a large constituency actually reduces the feasibility of vote buying.

For people who support the smaller constituencies, they mention that with just a single vote, people are likely to use this more discerningly, and this reduces the effectiveness of vote buying.

There was a lot of talk about vote buying in the mid 90's when they were drafting the new Constitution. The arguement for adopting the smaller constituencies, was that research showed that voters nearly always used their first vote for the individual or party that they supported, the second mostly went to the party that they supported, but the final vote they could be persuaded either by fame (mostly actors and actresses), money or simple peer pressure (Puu Yai, Commanding Officer, village head etc).

This is also supported by results in by-elections. These are nearly always for single seats, and yet the instances where red or yellow cards are issued in a by-election are almost unheard of.

Just look at WHO supports this move - and you have the answer on a silver tray!

Why has it (The Constitution) been changed AFTER the man with a overwhelming majority was all of a sudden ruling

without a possible challenge!

And the very same supporters, today are accusing this government of a dictatorship?

Isn't that more than highly sarcastic?

Nice points.

Here's another analysis. I suspect that Barnhard, Sunan, and their ilk can see that going back to the 2006 constitution (which allowed rampant vote buying and more, almost without challenge) is not going to happen.

So they are trying for a halfway roll back. What perhaps is also in their minds (also supporting their quest for a halfway rollback, in place for as long as possible) is the possibility that if Abhisit and Korn can cement their position even more strongly, there is the possibility of charter changes which will introduce even stronger punishment for vote buying and possibly charter changes which will totally prevent one person gaining unchallenged power.

[CLOD]

At last, some leadership.

Yes, but isn't it a pity, it didn't come from the Opposition in Parliament ? They seem to be missing their opportunity, to show that they have ideas of their own, preferring to do nothing at all instead.

What do you expect they didnt do a single thing legisltaively to run the country when in power. They went through a full parliamentary session without even settign up the committees neede dot enable parlaiment to function which was a record for Thailand! There was also a lot of time limted legislation of a non-controversial kind that they just ignored etc. It really was the worst government ever in terms of not doing anything

That would be the last democratically elected government wouldn't it.

How could it govern with all the anti-democracy forces lined up against it.

[Siripon]

At last, some leadership.

Yes, but isn't it a pity, it didn't come from the Opposition in Parliament ? They seem to be missing their opportunity, to show that they have ideas of their own, preferring to do nothing at all instead.

What do you expect they didnt do a single thing legisltaively to run the country when in power. They went through a full parliamentary session without even settign up the committees neede dot enable parlaiment to function which was a record for Thailand! There was also a lot of time limted legislation of a non-controversial kind that they just ignored etc. It really was the worst government ever in terms of not doing anything

That would be the last democratically elected government wouldn't it.

How could it govern with all the anti-democracy forces lined up against it.

Thaksin exhibited the same disgraceful behaviour in Parliament, he very, very rarely answered any questions in Parliament, always delegating the duty to someone else. He held Parliament in contempt really.

Apisit has a far superior record in Parliamentary participation.

[animatic]

At last, some leadership.

Yes, but isn't it a pity, it didn't come from the Opposition in Parliament ? They seem to be missing their opportunity, to show that they have ideas of their own, preferring to do nothing at all instead.

What do you expect they didnt do a single thing legisltaively to run the country when in power. They went through a full parliamentary session without even settign up the committees needed ot enable parlaiment to function which was a record for Thailand! There was also a lot of time limted legislation of a non-controversial kind that they just ignored etc. It really was the worst government ever in terms of not doing anything

That would be the last democratically elected government wouldn't it.

How could it govern with all the anti-democracy forces lined up against it.

If they actually had tried to and not only be a save Thaksin campaign,

they might have found the going much easier.

Still at that point PAD was being a watch dog, more than any pretense of a unit of force,

but PPP just was incapable of doing anything not directly connected to Thaksins interests.

And when Samak could have been reinstalled, Thaksin himself publicly pulled the plug

and showed for all time HE alone on the run was controler of PPP and had no interests

in actually doing legislative work for the Thai people and the country,

over saving his own bacon, or better out pork.

It may have been democratically elected, BUT IT WAS CONTROLLED BY ONE MAN,

and he had no interest in any legislation that didn't benefit himself.

That is a false flag of Democratic process being used to mask a dictator.

Certainly the current constitution is not perfect, no constitution is,

but it is better than '97 because it is a few notches harder to jigger the

country for profit because it if. Progress.

Edited February 4, 2010 by animatic