Danger Of Elected Provincial Thai Governors

[afarang]

Australia is , regrettably ,still subject to a monarchical system.However, EVERY level of Govt.-we have 3-(national,state, local) is elected. There are no appointees. Absolutely, Governors should be elected in Thailand.

You are the minority in your views of the monarchy in Australia the majority of Australians respect and love the queen and wish her to continue to be the head of state although I do believe with your current leader she will be gunning to drop the Monarchy once Queen Elizabeth passes but until then she is just gonna have to live with it.

DK

You seem to be remarkably ill-informed on at least 2 countries.

Further more,by the way you use "your', you are not even an Ozzie

[silp1979]

" have proposed that the governors of all provinces in the country be elected......."

No way. Selection is best. If election is needed, maybe 30% elected, and 70% remains selected. The problem with election is that it allows for voting selling/buying. No such selling/buying in the selection method.

u sound like somebody brainwashed you

Selection method is vulnerable to corruption? Or not in your dreamworld?

[Thai at Heart]

Having a good friend who has to schmooze a governor up country, it is simply a matter of passing money to whoever the government of the day decides to put in place.

I suppose it is a little bit like governments appointing ambassadors to embassies, except the Thai provincial governors simply get to add to their bank balances for as long as they hold onto the job.

[chantorn]

" have proposed that the governors of all provinces in the country be elected......."

No way. Selection is best. If election is needed, maybe 30% elected, and 70% remains selected. The problem with election is that it allows for voting selling/buying. No such selling/buying in the selection method.

u sound like somebody brainwashed you

Selection method is vulnerable to corruption? Or not in your dreamworld?

Selection method is vulnerable to corruption? Not if you listen to Sondhi of PAD.

[SergeiY]

Many of the pro-red shirt scholars from Chulalongkorn University have proposed that the governors of all provinces in the country be elected, similar to the gubernatorial electoral system practiced in Bangkok Metropolitan and Pattaya.

Is Chula a stronghold of the red movement? the intellectual centre, the brain?

Does no non-red academic think similar - that 'elected provincial Thai Governors' would be a good idea?

Or is that just a smear by the author of the article that anyone who suggest something like elections must be of of these red *****.

[Thai at Heart]

Many of the pro-red shirt scholars from Chulalongkorn University have proposed that the governors of all provinces in the country be elected, similar to the gubernatorial electoral system practiced in Bangkok Metropolitan and Pattaya.

Is Chula a stronghold of the red movement? the intellectual centre, the brain?

Does no non-red academic think similar - that 'elected provincial Thai Governors' would be a good idea?

Or is that just a smear by the author of the article that anyone who suggest something like elections must be of of these red *****.

Indeed strange that a pro-democratic, decentralisation plan can be seen as some kind of red plot. Having more democracy will somehow strengthen the hand of a party that has been unable to win an election without massive vote buying.

So is it that the democracy is bad, or that the vote buying is bad, or both? Seems that the idea of elections full stop will potentially weaken the country. Could be true, could be not, but I won't wait for the day for there to be apparently MORE democracy on table in Thailand.

If the reds up the ante in terms of any more in terms of in public places, the army will step in more and more until the point is reached that there may as well have been a coup.

[rakman]

" have proposed that the governors of all provinces in the country be elected......."

No way. Selection is best. If election is needed, maybe 30% elected, and 70% remains selected. The problem with election is that it allows for voting selling/buying. No such selling/buying in the selection method.

Morally, what's the difference between "vote buying" by politicians, and "position buying" by the same politicians? One "buys votes" to get elected, the other "buys the position". Either way, it's corruption, so it just depends on which form of it you want.

But by allowing the people to vote, they at least feel as if they have a say-so in their government.

It's a big problem in the US now. I guess they are bypassing election laws somehow and any group can fund campaign advertising. Even if the candidate does not approve it. And the amount of money now being spent is 3 or 4 times what it was 10 years ago...to ridiculous levels. So voters who see an ad on TV can't really be sure who authored it. Crazy...but it sure beats having a governor given a position...or being allowed to buy it. Neither way is perfect, but elections at least give the people the feeling they had something to do with it...like all the American's who voted for Obama and are now regretting it!

The election laws in the US do allow certain groups to do campaign ads without approval of the candidate, either for the candidate or against their opponent. Actually, the amount of money spent is still in proportion to the economy, the numbers just seem insane only by size. Only foreigners and foreign corporations are banned from contributing to a campaign.

The election laws are pretty well enforced, but could be better.

[Just1Voice]

" have proposed that the governors of all provinces in the country be elected......."

No way. Selection is best. If election is needed, maybe 30% elected, and 70% remains selected. The problem with election is that it allows for voting selling/buying. No such selling/buying in the selection method.

u sound like somebody brainwashed you

Selection method is vulnerable to corruption? Or not in your dreamworld?

Selection method is vulnerable to corruption? Not if you listen to Sondhi of PAD.

Let's see, this is someone who publicly stated, more than once during the Yellow occupation of Gvt House: "...the rural poor are too STUPID to vote, and shouldn't be allowed to". If this isn't blatant discrimination, and a serious form of "racism", then I don't know what is.

The same man who, while on a speaking tour of the U.S. after the coup who stated: "The coupe was necessary because the Bangkok Elites were losing their power and wanted it back", to which he fully subscribed to and believed in.

During an interview a few months ago, which was conducted in English, when asked about Thaksin, Sondhi stated he had "met him a couple of time, but didn't really know him.". That's strange, as at one time the two of them were business partners, and Sondhi once claimed Thaksin was the greatest PM Thailand had ever had.

If you do a little research, you'll find that Sondhi once gave Thaksin some shares in one of his companies. Thaksin later sold the shares at a major profit, and Sondhi got mad because Thaksin didn't cut him in on it, and THAT is when the rift started between them. Basically the entire Sondhi vs Thaksin issue started out as a personal vendetta on the part of Sondhi, and had nothing to do with politics, but he used it as a way to get back at Thaksin.

BTW, while Sondhi did originally propose a 70/30 Parliament, he has now backed off of that. The original concept was that 70% of Parliament would be appointed by their "peers", i.e. academics, business men, etc. with the remaining 30% being elected. But the "catch" in that part was that no one without AT LEAST a Bachelor's degree would be allowed to vote, which would eliminate about 90% of the population, with 10% controlling things, pretty much the way it is now.

Before you nominate Sondhi for "sainthood", you might want to do a little research on the man. He has a Napoleonic "little man" complex, with Fascists political leanings. Not exactly someone I'm going to put too much faith into.

[sirchai]

Either way its time to let the THAI people VOTE and let them choose who leads them instead of the fiasco that has been going on since the thaksin coup

DK

Have you ever been in the Isan when they've got the chance to 'choose'?

They get paid by several people. Some are offering 300, some 500 baht. I've heard of one who was also paying a big bottle Lao Khao, he made the race.

Well, sad, but true. :jap:

[Eureka]

Australia is , regrettably ,still subject to a monarchical system.However, EVERY level of Govt.-we have 3-(national,state, local) is elected. There are no appointees. Absolutely, Governors should be elected in Thailand.

Funny I do not remember ever voting for a state Governor or for a Govenor General.

The GG is the Queen's representative in Aust and is appointed by the Federal Government and was historicaly the highest political post in Aust, just ask Gough.

Recent times have eroded the Governor General's power somewhat but the recent electon showed that the post does retain a considerable power. The political party must demonstrate their right to govern before the GG will swear them to power.

Due to a marital connection between a senior Labor politician and the Governor General there was speculation that the Labor party may have an unfair political advantage in forming government.

[virtualtraveller]

We're getting into an unending philosophical debate here about democracy; at what point do local and national interests draw the line of governance. Certainly Thailand might well solve some of their differences through more of a federal system like the US where each province is locally governed by the federal government overrides it on national affairs like education, national budget dispersal, security apparatus etc. This would give the people of Isarn a better feeling of control over their affairs, and tone done some of the hate and mistrust between the two polarised sectors of society (urban rich/rural poor).

It would also eliminate, to a degree, the awful practice of position buying and loyalty above competence that is going on from both sides and very necessary to maintain political clout. However, since local strong men dominate politics and money factors in elections, a much more robust system of checks and balances, accountability and censure needs to be in place to keep the dodgy in check. For example, democracy seems to work much better in Bangkok, where there are fewer instances of vote buying, but I'm not sure that parts of Isarn can be trusted to elect a leader fairly. What's the point of democractic autonomy when the resulting winner isn't necessarily the people's independently chosen choice.

I doubt the present governments idea to appoint all levels of authority will ever get of the ground, just imagine what would happen if such power fell into the opposition's hands.

[afarang]

Australia is , regrettably ,still subject to a monarchical system.However, EVERY level of Govt.-we have 3-(national,state, local) is elected. There are no appointees. Absolutely, Governors should be elected in Thailand.

Funny I do not remember ever voting for a state Governor or for a Govenor General.

The GG is the Queen's representative in Aust and is appointed by the Federal Government and was historicaly the highest political post in Aust, just ask Gough.

Recent times have eroded the Governor General's power somewhat but the recent electon showed that the post does retain a considerable power. The political party must demonstrate their right to govern before the GG will swear them to power.

Due to a marital connection between a senior Labor politician and the Governor General there was speculation that the Labor party may have an unfair political advantage in forming government.

And what a furphy, that was