Thai Reconciliation Committee Set To Propose Major Changes, Favours US System

[webfact]

Reconciliation committee set to propose Major changes

By Satien Wiriyaphanpongsa

The Nation

Sombat panel favours US system to ensure a stable government

The reconciliation panel on political reform and charter amendments is set to propose a semi-presidential system in which Parliament cannot vote to remove a government and MPs cannot nominate a prime minister, while a PM would no longer have the right to dissolve the House, a source said yesterday.

The subcommittee on the political reform panel chaired by Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, rector of the National Institute Development Administration, has completed a study on the new political system and it has received a nod from the committee, which will submit the proposal for government approval.

The proposed new political system would adopt "strengths" of different systems used by developed countries such as the presidential system in the United States, and the electoral system in Germany.

The new system clearly separates the power of the executive and legislative branch. It would allow the government to concentrate on running the country without concern about parliamentary disruptions.

The sub-committee has proposed to deprive parliamentarians of the right to nominate a PM, as it believes this would encourage key figures getting together to bargain for ministerial seats in return for nominating a person to be prime minister.

The subcommittee believes such risks should be eliminated to ensure a qualified PM ends up managing the country. Any party that gets a majority or most seats should have the right to form government and pick a PM. A government under this system would run the country for a full term of four years. Another proposed change would be denying parliamentarians the right to vote in a no-confidence motion to remove a government - while the PM would also lose the right to dissolve the House. This system would be similar to the presidential system in the US. New checks and balances would be set up through House committees to ensure the government does not break laws.

Elections play a pivotal role because voters directly vote parties that they like best to run the country and parties have to compete with policies. They must be well thought-out and well-studied, as they must be submitted to an official body to ensure that their policies are feasible in terms of practice and budgets.

The sub-committee will also propose an independent MP system in which MPs no longer come under the banner of any party. It argues that the current party system, which aims to boost parties by forcing MPs to come on board, owners of the party or party financiers have become stronger rather than the party itself. So, MPs have been dominated by a few people who run the party, as financiers decide whether MPs should have the right to run in elections. This has led to the problems with legislative and executive branches controlled by a few people with "absolute power" over a party. The panel said this lesson had been learnt from previous governments.

-- The Nation 2011-01-17

[OzMick]

"Any party that gets a majority or most seats should have the right to form government and pick a PM".

Why should the largest party get to form a government in preference to a coalition? Thailand is a multi-party democracy, not a US-style 2 horse race, and the people have a right to choose the party which most closely fits their ideology and principles, or pays the most .

I know this a Nation report, but if anybody can explain how a PM is chosen by reading it, I would enjoy being enlightened.

[Pib]

The new system clearly separates the power of the executive and legislative branch. It would allow the government to concentrate on running the country without concern about parliamentary disruptions.

Concur 100%. As I've said in some other posts, Thai's spend so much time on trying to dissolve the government, starting about one minute after a new election, that they can't concentrate on running a government. I think they would be better served by a government structure where the leader (i.e., PM, President) would serve a set term of around 4 years barring impeachment by the parliamentary body (Parliament, Congress) and this executive branch leader could not dissolve the parliamentary body. Parliamentary members could only be replaced if they failed to win re-election every X years or through impeachment. And the requirement for impreachment would be high.

The current Thai governmental structure/political system creates too much turmoil in the government and everyday lives of Thai, because of the constant in-fighting, much of it focused toward trying to get the PM to dissolve the Parliament ASAP and call new elections, or get certain political parties banned. Now, of course, other governmental systems like the US system have their in-fighting and political differences also, but this in-flighting is usually concentrated toward particular bills/policies/laws versus concentrated toward trying to get the President thrown-out tomorrow, next next week, within six months, etc., although there are constant efforts to shape the mind of voter for the future election which is set to occur on day/month/year X....not before or not after.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Pib

[whybother]

The new system clearly separates the power of the executive and legislative branch. It would allow the government to concentrate on running the country without concern about parliamentary disruptions.

Concur 100%. As I've said in some other posts, Thai's spend so much time on trying to dissolve the government, starting about one minute after a new election, that they can't concentrate on running a government. I think they would be better served by a government structure where the leader (i.e., PM, President) would serve a set term of around 4 years barring impeachment by the parliamentary body (Parliament, Congress) and this executive branch leader could not dissolve the parliamentary body. Parliamentary members could only be replaced if they failed to win re-election every X years or through impeachment. And the requirement for impreachment would be high.

The current Thai governmental structure/political system creates too much turmoil in the government and everyday lives of Thai, because of the constant in-fighting, much of it focused toward trying to get the PM to dissolve the Parliament ASAP and call new elections, or get certain political parties banned. Now, of course, other governmental systems like the US system have their in-fighting and political differences also, but this in-flighting is usually concentrated toward particular bills/policies/laws versus concentrated toward trying to get the President thrown-out tomorrow, next next week, within six months, etc., although there are constant efforts to shape the mind of voter for the future election which is set to occur on day/month/year X....not before or not after.

The MPs and the culture create the turmoil. The system works fine in many other countries.

[Thai at Heart]

Notice no mention of repealing the requirement to have a degree for an MP.

If you want the parliament to be representative of the people, I am a little unsure why a degree confirms any type of representation or competence at all.

[SomTumTiger]

Notice no mention of repealing the requirement to have a degree for an MP.

If you want the parliament to be representative of the people, I am a little unsure why a degree confirms any type of representation or competence at all.

I have heard this mentioned several times, but cannot find this requirement in the Thailand Constitution, for MPs. It does say it for Senators, but perhaps my eyes are playing tricks. Can anyone show me this passage, for my own education?

[puyaidon]

As long as most of the people believe that selling their vote to the highest bidder is the way things should be done, things will never change.

The Thais are going to have to develop a new kind of democracy that encompasses aspects of the old as well as any new changes as they see fit. But change is not in the character of the populace. Better to use the old way rather than use a new way that might not work and make someone look like they are incompetent.

[Buchholz]

Notice no mention of repealing the requirement to have a degree for an MP.

If you want the parliament to be representative of the people, I am a little unsure why a degree confirms any type of representation or competence at all.

I have heard this mentioned several times, but cannot find this requirement in the Thailand Constitution, for MPs. It does say it for Senators, but perhaps my eyes are playing tricks. Can anyone show me this passage, for my own education?

MP's don't, but Senators and Election Commissioners and Cabinet Ministers follow this example

(for Cabinet Ministers):

Thai Constitution:

Section 174. A Minister must possess the qualifications and must not be under any of the prohibitions as follows:

(3) having graduated with not lower than a Bachelor’s degree or its equivalent;

Edited January 17, 2011 by Buchholz

[Emptyset]

The MPs and the culture create the turmoil. The system works fine in many other countries.

Tend to agree. I can see how some of the proposed changes might improve things slightly. But some of them are just absurd. Abolish parties? Having to submit policies to some sort of vetting committee first? Who would be submitting the policies anyway if you can't have parties? It doesn't sound very democratic to me. Abolishing parties is pointless as it doesn't do anything to prevent cliques forming and it sounds very difficult to enforce, people will form groups which will function as informal parties. What they need is proper parties with clearly differing ideologies that offer voters a real choice, not to abolish them completely. Sounds like a massive step backwards. Not that it'll happen, unless there's another coup and the junta decides to put it in their constitution.

[thailandbluegrass]

I ain't the smartest guy here but all I get out of this is that if this becomes part of the constitution while Abhisit is still in power, he will not be able to disolve the party right?

Now call me stupid but if this is true doesn't it seem like the perfect ploy right now for Abhisit to do this?

[whybother]

I ain't the smartest guy here but all I get out of this is that if this becomes part of the constitution while Abhisit is still in power, he will not be able to disolve the party right?

Now call me stupid but if this is true doesn't it seem like the perfect ploy right now for Abhisit to do this?

I imagine it would be something that would apply from the next election .... or the one after that. I can't imagine them getting this in place in less than 12 months.

[rubl]

The sub-committee will also propose an independent MP system in which MPs no longer come under the banner of any party. It argues that the current party system, which aims to boost parties by forcing MPs to come on board, owners of the party or party financiers have become stronger rather than the party itself. So, MPs have been dominated by a few people who run the party, as financiers decide whether MPs should have the right to run in elections. This has led to the problems with legislative and executive branches controlled by a few people with "absolute power" over a party. The panel said this lesson had been learnt from previous governments.

I guess the idea behind this is that independent MP's don't need money for their election campaign. One may wonder what the sub-commission was smoking while formulating this particular piece of wisdom

[drand10]

Suggestions to the American form of Gov't that the Thai Gov't should consider:

- Limit Congress terms in Gov't to (1) Term:

This takes the career politicians out of politics. You only want people in Congress that truly want to spend their full term sincerely serving their people. Once they need to run for re-election, special interests and the need to raise money comes into play. 1/2 way through their term and they are already playing partisan politics and spending their time raising money.

- All spending must be paid for as determined by an independent accounting body (In the USA, we have an independent Govt' authority that does the accounting).

- Ruling party in Congress should NOT have the only voice as to which bills are considered in congress. This allows both the majority and minority parties to be part of concress and lesses the partisanship. Maybe divide the bills that come to vote based on party percentages in Congress? Something like this.

I'm sure there are lots more to this..but these these are just a few pitfalls of the American System. No system is perfect..but why not learn for others to bring a more perfect union. Good Luck!

[Pib]

- All spending must be paid for as determined by an independent accounting body (In the USA, we have an independent Govt' authority that does the accounting).

You may be referring to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is indeed a non-partisan office and appears to give accurate estimates on the real world estimated aspects of a bill. But as you know, the elected representatives (i.e., Congress) are not bound to any recommendations or accounting reports from the CBO....the CBO just provides an input/a report...pro or con...on the aspects of a proposed bill. A bill can still be a money-pit, not revenue neutral, or a tax hike, with the CBO reporting as such. The Congress says "OK, thanks for the report" and then continues to pass or vote down the bill. Until the elected officials--of any country--become truly concerned about the budget impact on a country finances any accounting reports are just products that keep the accountants employed. But the CBO reports are good things as sometimes the news coverage a report gets just blows a bill out of the water with the public, forcing Congress to fix or kill the bill.

But if there was some other law that forced Congress to at least make any new bill/benefit/etc. revenue neutral (i.e., paid for) if the CBO report said it was not revenue neutral, that would be a good thing for Thailand to implement if they setup something equivalent to a CBO; otherwise they are just opening another paper-generating accountant firm comprised of govt civil servants on the govt payroll/being paid for with tax dollars.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Pib

[drand10]

I totally agree. Just ideas...American system is OK is some ways..but could certainly use some tweaking. Problem of course is that much that needs changing needs Congress to vote on..and of course Congress would never vote away their jobs. Quite a catch 22.

Another idea:

- With a certain # of signed partitions nation wide....Items can be brought to national Vote. Not sure if this is possible today or not in America.

I could never see Congress limiting their powers and/or limiting their terms in office. So I think there needs to be some checks & balances in place to allow the people to petition and force national votes on these sort of issues.

I also need that Congress should be able to offer solutions to a problem (Example - National Deficits) and then give the bills to the Public/People to vote on during national elections. Why? Because I think both parties know that we need to take drastic measures to fix USA's problems..but no politician wants to be the bearer of bad news to the people. So often, National Referendum Votes give the politicians "Cover" and allow the people to vote their for the solutions.

Of course..this would be less necessary if the politician didn't have to worry about re-election. He'd simply be able to vote the way he knows he needs to vote for the people. Re-election can have such a negative influence in the world of politics.

[jdinasia]

"Any party that gets a majority or most seats should have the right to form government and pick a PM".

Why should the largest party get to form a government in preference to a coalition? Thailand is a multi-party democracy, not a US-style 2 horse race, and the people have a right to choose the party which most closely fits their ideology and principles, or pays the most .

I know this a Nation report, but if anybody can explain how a PM is chosen by reading it, I would enjoy being enlightened.

Currently the PM is chosen by a vote in Parliament. (Hence, coalitions (as a rule) in Thailand.

I agree that this system just won't work in Thailand. As you correctly pointed out this is NOT a 2 party system. Forcing voters to pick between 2 parties (as in the US) often is forcing them to vote against the worst choice instead of voting for their own choice. Coalition style parliamentary systems work, when the checks and balances set up are not destroyed (as happened between 2001 and 2005 in Thailand.)

[Pib]

There is no forcing of American voters to vote between only two parties in the American system, as there are many parties and usually candidates from some of these parties on the election ballot if they can get some many votes in the primary run-off elections. It's just over the years the great majority of Americans have aligned with the two major parties (Democrats and Republicans). Is it better to have three, four, five, six, etc., political parties in a Thai parliamentary setup all fighting for power within the system (kinda like a free-for-all wrestling match) or better to have two fighters in the ring? Definitely no shortage of unproductive in-fighting in the current Thai governmental setup. I don't know...each governmental system has its pro's and con's depending on the culture/mindset of the populace.

[SouthernMan3]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I did not notice any mention of a King or royal family at all.

Am I missing something ?

Or is everyone else ?

[jdinasia]

There is no forcing of American voters to vote between only two parties in the American system, as there are many parties and usually candidates from some of these parties on the election ballot if they can get some many votes in the primary run-off elections. It's just over the years the great majority of Americans have aligned with the two major parties (Democrats and Republicans). Is it better to have three, four, five, six, etc., political parties in a Thai parliamentary setup all fighting for power within the system (kinda like a free-for-all wrestling match) or better to have two fighters in the ring? Definitely no shortage of unproductive in-fighting in the current Thai governmental setup. I don't know...each governmental system has its pro's and con's depending on the culture/mindset of the populace.

Again, in the US it is often about having to vote against the party you like least instead of being able to vote for the party you want. The whole Electoral College system sets the tone for a 2 party system there. So, imho it would be FAR better to have a parliamentary/coalition system where more people are actually reperesented by people they want rather than in a "winner-take-all" or "first-to-the-post" system. Plus the potential for this idea to go REALLY bad is far too big. Government gets elected. Government can't dissolve the lower house and call new elections, parliament can't vote "no confidence" and force new parliamentary election of a PM or a new general election. Gridlock sets in. Parliament refuses to pass a budget ........... a new and more interesting constitutional crisis OR a new coup ..... Hopefully the 18 successful coups and 2 failed coup attempts have been enough. Bolster the checks and balances, strengthen the EC, get rid of party dissolution, and get on with governing Thailand.

[whybother]

... MPs cannot nominate a prime minister. ...

... Any party that gets a majority or most seats should have the right to form government and pick a PM. ...

... an independent MP system in which MPs no longer come under the banner of any party. ...

Right, so let me get this straight.

The are no parties and MPs can not nominate a prime minister.

But the party that gets the most seats get to pick a PM.

Ummm .... huh????

[whybother]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I did not notice any mention of a King or royal family at all.

Am I missing something ?

Or is everyone else ?

It's about politics. You can't mention stuff like that.

I would imagine that implied is that the King will be head of state ... etc, etc. - no change.

[SouthernMan3]

It's about politics. You can't mention stuff like that.

Well, the hell out of me.

Next time I want to post something I will be sure to check with you first........................................

[SouthernMan3]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I did not notice any mention of a King or royal family at all.

Am I missing something ?

Or is everyone else ?

It's about politics. You can't mention stuff like that.

Here, let me try again.

Excuse the hell out of me Mr. Why Bother/tell me what to post.

I will check with you next time to be sure that I am doing exactly what you say......

I would not want to risk offending you.

[SomTumTiger]

It's about politics. You can't mention stuff like that.

Well, the hell out of me.

Next time I want to post something I will be sure to check with you first........................................

Good idea - because he is right.

[SouthernMan3]

It's about politics. You can't mention stuff like that.

Well, the hell out of me.

Next time I want to post something I will be sure to check with you first........................................

Good idea - because he is right.

Who is right about what ?

[OzMick]

Latest clarification from the committee:

"Wuthisarn Tanchai, secretary to the Sombat panel, said the proposal was based on the belief that a party winning the most House seats should be given the mandate to run the country, with other parties not being allowed to "rob" it by getting into secret deals and forming a coalition government behind its back...........................It's against the mandate of voters for the number two political party to form a government"

This is a very strange concept of a mandate, where a party of, say 30%, of MPs would be given preference over a coalition of 50%+. It seems tailored to the last situation where PTT were the largest; I wonder if he would rethink if PTT came in second.

Or perhaps the dems are expecting to be the largest party next election, but might not achieve majority?

Edited January 18, 2011 by OzMick

[hammered]

Bizarre

[animatic]

There are some good points, bad points and missing points.

Yes they want to prevent back room dealing,

but also give direct voter choice to who creates a government.

But typically if a certain time frame is NOT met for the

biggest vote getter to create a coalition the 2nd biggest gets a chance.

This makes perfect sense, vs 60-70% of the country NOT voting for a party,

but they get the whole shooting match as biggest.

If an MP is elected, then he is representing a block of constituency.

I personally think in the current system ONLY Constituency MPs

and NO Party List MPs should vote for PM.

But even more so I think a individual vote for the 'president' or 'National Leader'

should be done directly by the people, and avoid the MP votes and their influenciers entirely.

Without in any way affecting the Constitutional Monarchy aspects, duties and prerogatives.

I also favor the ending of the Party List MPs completely.

It is the main dis-enfranchiser of the common man.

These pratts do nothing more than work up into the party hierarchy,

and suddenly they are handed a MP seat.

Yes, the idea of stopping the incessant no-confidence battles is good,

while adding Impeachment clauses for executive leaders,

with a reasonably high percentage needed to do so.

Some things obviously missing, like mechanism, but many basic ideas are improvements,

even if not all aspects are stated publicly at this point. It could be a trail balloon to

see the wind direction..

Edited January 18, 2011 by animatic

[Pib]

It's about politics. You can't mention stuff like that.

Well, the hell out of me.

Next time I want to post something I will be sure to check with you first........................................

Good idea - because he is right.

Who is right about what ?

Probably talking about this forum rule:

2) Not to express disrespect of the King of Thailand or anyone else in the Thai royal family, whether living or deceased, nor to criticize the monarchy as an institution. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family. Discussion of the lese majeste law or lese majeste cases is permitted on the forum, providing no comment or speculation is made referencing the royal family. To breach this rule will result in immediate ban.

[hhiser]

Notice no mention of repealing the requirement to have a degree for an MP.

If you want the parliament to be representative of the people, I am a little unsure why a degree confirms any type of representation or competence at all.

Yes, especially with the rumored prevalence of degree buying. But how would you separate acceptable candidates from the unacceptable?