Strong Military Role In Thai NBTC

[webfact]

NBTC

Strong military role in NBTC

By Usanee Mongkolporn

The Nation

The fact that five military top brass have been named commissioners of the new 11-member National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has convinced both private operators and members of the public that the watchdog will focus more on broadcasting than on telecommunications.

"The top brass is expected to facilitate an overhaul of the broadcasting business under the new law, given the Army's vast interests in television and radio frequencies," said a source in the broadcasting industry. "All the frequency allocations must come under change and their presence could smooth things out."

Another source in the telecom industry said a higher emphasis on broadcasting was understandable, given that the NBTC's predecessor - the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) - had done a great deal to put that industry in order over the past seven years.

The Royal Thai Army has owned many broadcasting spectra, and has granted concessions to private firms to operate radio and TV businesses on its frequencies.

Great conflicts are expected under the Frequency Act BE2010's Article 43, which deals with the subcontracting of airtime. Slots available for subcontract will be determined by the NBTC. At present, several private companies operate full-time on the Army's radio frequencies.

One role of the NBTC, which will automatically replace the NTC when the commissioners win royal endorsement, is to put the broadcasting industry in order and take back unused spectra for reallocation. The NBTC will set up two sub-panels, with five members each, to oversee the telecom and broadcasting industries respectively.

A telecom-industry source believes that the NBTC will follow the master plan drafted by the NTC in drawing up its own telecom master plan.

Notably, NTC commissioner Natee Sukonrat, who has been appointed to the new body, will have to resign from the NTC within 15 days.

Aside from Natee, who oversaw the Army's satellite interests, the other top brass are an official at the Defence Ministry's Radio, Television and Telecommunications Office, General Sethapong Malisuwan; the chairman of the board of the Defence Technology Institute (Public Organisation), Air Chief Marshal Taresh Poonsri; the former satellite TV chief at Channel 5, Lt-General Peerapong Manakit; and a special adviser at the Royal Thai Armed Forces headquarters, General Sukit Khamasundara.

It has been speculated that either Taresh or Sukit will be voted NBTC chairman.

The NBTC commissioners are widely called a "dream team", as they will be tasked to steer the broadcasting and telecom industries through a difficult charted course. For effectiveness, the commissioners must show neutrality, as both industries are fraught with legal problems and political interventions.

Moreover, they will have to work closely with related ministries. Concerns are mounting that various tasks may delay their decision-making process and cost billions of baht in lost opportunities.

Cellular operators and telecom investors have high hopes that the commission will complete the spectrum table and master plans as soon as possible to enable the long-awaited auction of licences for third-generation wireless broadband on the 2.1-gigahertz spectrum. The greater the delays, the more uncertainty there will be over the ownership of the assets of cellular operators once their concessions from state agencies TOT and CAT Telecom end.

The auction will also allow them to develop new services, hence increasing investment and jobs.

The NBTC will also have to look into Article 46 of the frequency law, which obliges telecom operators to use their spectra to provide their own services, instead of subcontracting frequencies to others. This will affect the NTC's decision to allow subcontracting to mobile virtual network operators.

The NBTC will also have to deal with the broadcasting industry, from community radio to TV broadcasters and satellite-TV businesses, which were unregulated for many years in the absence of a National Broadcasting Commission (NBC).

The previous Constitution made obligatory the formation of the NTC and the NBC, but while the former got off the ground in 2005, the establishment process of the latter was nullified for reasons of unconstitutionality. It was not until 2008 that the Broadcasting Act authorised the NTC to oversee community radio and cable TV businesses.

The 2010 Frequency Allocation Law also authorised the NTC to act on the NBTC's behalf, pending formation of the new commission.

-- The Nation 2011-09-06

[Thai at Heart]

Strong military role in NBTC

What a sad situation in 2011

[backtonormal]

Strong military role in NBTC

What a sad situation in 2011

It as always been my strong belief that this government will remove the army from the airways. We have seen to often how this power is abused. Please no more posts about this being a democracy. This place as a seriously long way to go but removing the forces from tv and radio is a major step in the right direction

[bkkjames]

At least here it's transparent, unlike in so-called democracy preaching places which keep you tuned in to fox news, reading the new york times or the guardian newspapers.

Not saying its right or wrong the situation here but long gone are the days when the press worldwide was free from outside influences - be they politcal, religeous or economic.

Anyways, I seem to recall seeing both red and pad tv stations broadcasting 'their' views pretty openly on satellite on a recent trip to pattaya?

[Crushdepth]

Just get the 3G licenses issued, preferably without "needing to study" the situation for another decade.

[Thai at Heart]

At least here it's transparent, unlike in so-called democracy preaching places which keep you tuned in to fox news, reading the new york times or the guardian newspapers.

Not saying its right or wrong the situation here but long gone are the days when the press worldwide was free from outside influences - be they politcal, religeous or economic.

Anyways, I seem to recall seeing both red and pad tv stations broadcasting 'their' views pretty openly on satellite on a recent trip to pattaya?

Considering that the Murdochs are still a long way from being out of the woods, I would say that in comparison, Thailand has a very long way to go to catch up.

One would also have to say, that if you were a watcher of Fox, if you did read the Guardian, at least you were taking time to get a broad perspective. The problem is when political opinion is presented as news, which is the way that some media in the west is going, it is very little better than the red or yellow stations. It may well come to a point that many "news" shows in the west will come with a disclaimer "The previous show is pure opinion", or that it will state "The owners of such and such media company are staunch supporters of......"

Strict controls about how TV channels operate, and who owns them is a much better policy than having the armed forces involved in the media. The media in Thailand has been used for propaganda for a very very long time by the army, and as I said earlier, in 2011, it is a shame that they are so central to the media industry in 2011.

[bkkjames]

Well whinging about it aint gonna change it so move on to more important things like AF212 and more real-life shows

[backtonormal]

At least here it's transparent, unlike in so-called democracy preaching places which keep you tuned in to fox news, reading the new york times or the guardian newspapers.

Not saying its right or wrong the situation here but long gone are the days when the press worldwide was free from outside influences - be they politcal, religeous or economic.

Anyways, I seem to recall seeing both red and pad tv stations broadcasting 'their' views pretty openly on satellite on a recent trip to pattaya?

"at least here its transparent" depends how you look at it. This commission was set up by the senate whose members where not voted in by the populace, they were hand picked at a meetings, some that alledgedly received its orders by phone " from the invisible one". The senate does not appear to serve the people only its own interest thats why you hve 5 military brass on the committee.

A giant rethink of how the Senate is formed will take place at the start of PT's second term in office, The senate needs to have more members elected by the electorate and not hand picked to keep the status quo of the previous decades.

Start a committee whose only mandate is "an army in a true democracy should not......" then stop them doing whatever does not fit into those guidelines

Edited September 6, 2011 by backtonormal

[hammered]

This is the biggest piece of news around for a while. The amount of contracts that will pass through this committee is staggering and runs into immense amounts of baht.

Interesting comment in the other news source from someone who says it is like moving the media back to pre-channel 5 days.

[hammered]

At least here it's transparent, unlike in so-called democracy preaching places which keep you tuned in to fox news, reading the new york times or the guardian newspapers.

Not saying its right or wrong the situation here but long gone are the days when the press worldwide was free from outside influences - be they politcal, religeous or economic.

Anyways, I seem to recall seeing both red and pad tv stations broadcasting 'their' views pretty openly on satellite on a recent trip to pattaya?

"at least here its transparent" depends how you look at it. This commission was set up by the senate whose members where not voted in by the populace, they were hand picked at a meetings, some that alledgedly received its orders by phone " from the invisible one". The senate does not appear to serve the people only its own interest thats why you hve 5 military brass on the committee.

A giant rethink of how the Senate is formed will take place at the start of PT's second term in office, The senate needs to have more members elected by the electorate and not hand picked to keep the status quo of the previous decades.

Start a committee whose only mandate is "an army in a true democracy should not......" then stop them doing whatever does not fit into those guidelines

There is a possibility that with constitutional change the senate as it is now will be replaced by a fully elected body again. This committee may be the last decision under the managed democracy period of Thailand. A pretty important decision though

[Thai at Heart]

This is the biggest piece of news around for a while. The amount of contracts that will pass through this committee is staggering and runs into immense amounts of baht.

Interesting comment in the other news source from someone who says it is like moving the media back to pre-channel 5 days.

Yes I noticed that statement. How anyone can claim that this bunch can possibly deliver the "best" outcome for media in the 21st century in Thailand is dreaming. Why is the Senate responsible for putting together this committee anyway? Why doesn't anyone ever really throw their hands in the air and ask, why are the armed forces holding such senior positions in committees such as this?

Aren't this bunch responsible for planning the mobile phone laws and the such? Forget TV channels, I wouldn't fancy being in DTAC's shoes right now.

[hanuman1]

If these top military figures were put in their position by the current government, it will be another example of PTP giving the army a wide berth to do what it wants - presumably to keep them onside if things get rough politically. They haven't messed with military reshuffles and are now removing any possible reason the army could have of criticizing PTP in future on the issue of using broadcast media to influence/inflame the masses.

Probably a smart move by the PTP, especially since it was clearly illustrated before the election that curtailing the broadcast of pro-PTP groups' (read red shirt factions) propaganda did very little to limit the support for PTP. It may even have helped increase it.

[hammered]

If these top military figures were put in their position by the current government, it will be another example of PTP giving the army a wide berth to do what it wants - presumably to keep them onside if things get rough politically. They haven't messed with military reshuffles and are now removing any possible reason the army could have of criticizing PTP in future on the issue of using broadcast media to influence/inflame the masses.

Probably a smart move by the PTP, especially since it was clearly illustrated before the election that curtailing the broadcast of pro-PTP groups' (read red shirt factions) propaganda did very little to limit the support for PTP. It may even have helped increase it.

I think you'll find in reality it was a process almost complete under the last government rather than involving this one although no doubt they were tossed a bone with their lobbying. If the senate hadnt decided the decision would have legally moved to Yingluck which. The whole process has been "interesting" but considering the vast amount of money not surprising. I would think more about money and commercial interests related to certain groups than censorship etc

Interestingly Supinya was selected. The establishment strategy is so often to have a "pure" front. lets hope she sticks to her guns and proves to be the real deal. After all she didnt just face down a Thaksin law suit but also lambasted the freedom of the media becoming woprse under Sarayud and then Abhisit than it had ever been under Thaksin, so she seems independent and willing to judge by reality rather than partisanship.

[hammered]

This is the biggest piece of news around for a while. The amount of contracts that will pass through this committee is staggering and runs into immense amounts of baht.

Interesting comment in the other news source from someone who says it is like moving the media back to pre-channel 5 days.

Yes I noticed that statement. How anyone can claim that this bunch can possibly deliver the "best" outcome for media in the 21st century in Thailand is dreaming. Why is the Senate responsible for putting together this committee anyway? Why doesn't anyone ever really throw their hands in the air and ask, why are the armed forces holding such senior positions in committees such as this?

Aren't this bunch responsible for planning the mobile phone laws and the such? Forget TV channels, I wouldn't fancy being in DTAC's shoes right now.

The senate under the 2007 constitution was set up in a way that it was always going to protect certain old interests from elected politicians. Initially under 1997 this should have been set up but by senators fully selected and answerable to the people. Interestingly in democratic debate the more elected a body the more responsibility and decision making power it should have is usually the arguement. The unelected British house of lords has little power for example. However, when the Thai senate was made less democratic its powers arguably increased which was little mentioned in the media, and it retained ability to do make selections such as this.

[Thai at Heart]

This is the biggest piece of news around for a while. The amount of contracts that will pass through this committee is staggering and runs into immense amounts of baht.

Interesting comment in the other news source from someone who says it is like moving the media back to pre-channel 5 days.

Yes I noticed that statement. How anyone can claim that this bunch can possibly deliver the "best" outcome for media in the 21st century in Thailand is dreaming. Why is the Senate responsible for putting together this committee anyway? Why doesn't anyone ever really throw their hands in the air and ask, why are the armed forces holding such senior positions in committees such as this?

Aren't this bunch responsible for planning the mobile phone laws and the such? Forget TV channels, I wouldn't fancy being in DTAC's shoes right now.

The senate under the 2007 constitution was set up in a way that it was always going to protect certain old interests from elected politicians. Initially under 1997 this should have been set up but by senators fully selected and answerable to the people. Interestingly in democratic debate the more elected a body the more responsibility and decision making power it should have is usually the arguement. The unelected British house of lords has little power for example. However, when the Thai senate was made less democratic its powers arguably increased which was little mentioned in the media, and it retained ability to do make selections such as this.

I agree, there are many ways to skin the same cat, to achieve the result you want. There are myriad templates the world over for them to copy that work very efficiently to deliver more often or not the right result for the people. Problem always is that the system has to be Thai-ified to take care of this group, and that group so you end up with something that doesn't represent a working functional democratic system. furthermore, certainly nothing that gets close to producing results that benefit the people of Thailand. The rights of big business, and the bureaucracy supercede the needs of the population. Just look at CAT claiming to work in the national interest when in reality it is obvious that it is simply a self serving leviathan squeezing the life out of telecoms in this country.

Using the House of Lords analogy however, its role is clearly defined, and it has a function to perform that allows the UK to function. It is up to every country to work this out for themselves, however, if the result is that military men end up with a disproportionate control of the future of the country's media. I think we can see that probably isn't a good thing. What anyone in the country can do about it is another matter, but then as we have heard a million times, people get the system they deserve.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Thai at Heart

[Buchholz]

At least here it's transparent, unlike in so-called democracy preaching places which keep you tuned in to fox news, reading the new york times or the guardian newspapers.

Not saying its right or wrong the situation here but long gone are the days when the press worldwide was free from outside influences - be they politcal, religeous or economic.

Anyways, I seem to recall seeing both red and pad tv stations broadcasting 'their' views pretty openly on satellite on a recent trip to pattaya?

"at least here its transparent" depends how you look at it. This commission was set up by the senate whose members where not voted in by the populace

You are less than half right.

Over half are directly voted in.

.

[Buchholz]

At least here it's transparent, unlike in so-called democracy preaching places which keep you tuned in to fox news, reading the new york times or the guardian newspapers.

Not saying its right or wrong the situation here but long gone are the days when the press worldwide was free from outside influences - be they politcal, religeous or economic.

Anyways, I seem to recall seeing both red and pad tv stations broadcasting 'their' views pretty openly on satellite on a recent trip to pattaya?

"at least here its transparent" depends how you look at it. This commission was set up by the senate whose members where not voted in by the populace, they were hand picked at a meetings, some that alledgedly received its orders by phone " from the invisible one". The senate does not appear to serve the people only its own interest thats why you hve 5 military brass on the committee.

A giant rethink of how the Senate is formed will take place at the start of PT's second term in office, The senate needs to have more members elected by the electorate and not hand picked to keep the status quo of the previous decades.

Start a committee whose only mandate is "an army in a true democracy should not......" then stop them doing whatever does not fit into those guidelines

There is a possibility that with constitutional change the senate as it is now will be replaced by a fully elected body again. This committee may be the last decision under the managed democracy period of Thailand. A pretty important decision though

If that comes to pass, then hopefully the equally disturbing control of the Senate as was seen during the managed democracy period under Thaksin will somehow be eliminated as well.

.

[Cnxforever]

Strong military role in NBTC

What a sad situation in 2011

well the brainwashing has to go on....... otherwise the corrupt clique that has always run this country could loose its grip on power one day!

[hammered]

At least here it's transparent, unlike in so-called democracy preaching places which keep you tuned in to fox news, reading the new york times or the guardian newspapers.

Not saying its right or wrong the situation here but long gone are the days when the press worldwide was free from outside influences - be they politcal, religeous or economic.

Anyways, I seem to recall seeing both red and pad tv stations broadcasting 'their' views pretty openly on satellite on a recent trip to pattaya?

"at least here its transparent" depends how you look at it. This commission was set up by the senate whose members where not voted in by the populace, they were hand picked at a meetings, some that alledgedly received its orders by phone " from the invisible one". The senate does not appear to serve the people only its own interest thats why you hve 5 military brass on the committee.

A giant rethink of how the Senate is formed will take place at the start of PT's second term in office, The senate needs to have more members elected by the electorate and not hand picked to keep the status quo of the previous decades.

Start a committee whose only mandate is "an army in a true democracy should not......" then stop them doing whatever does not fit into those guidelines

There is a possibility that with constitutional change the senate as it is now will be replaced by a fully elected body again. This committee may be the last decision under the managed democracy period of Thailand. A pretty important decision though

If that comes to pass, then hopefully the equally disturbing control of the Senate as was seen during the managed democracy period under Thaksin will somehow be eliminated as well.

.

In reality the powerful players have to agree the set of rules and those rules have to be acceptable to the people too. The country has to find its own. The current set of rules are clearly not agreed on that much we know, so it has to resolved and screaming at people to accept what they dont want to isnt going to work. Thailand is changing and some of the polity and a lot of the old power players have found themselves left behind, not knowing what to do and not even understanding the country anymore while some opportunists are better positioned.

[Buchholz]

There is a possibility that with constitutional change the senate as it is now will be replaced by a fully elected body again. This committee may be the last decision under the managed democracy period of Thailand. A pretty important decision though

If that comes to pass, then hopefully the equally disturbing control of the Senate as was seen during the managed democracy period under Thaksin will somehow be eliminated as well.

In reality the powerful players have to agree the set of rules and those rules have to be acceptable to the people too. The country has to find its own. The current set of rules are clearly not agreed on that much we know, so it has to resolved and screaming at people to accept what they dont want to isnt going to work. Thailand is changing and some of the polity and a lot of the old power players have found themselves left behind, not knowing what to do and not even understanding the country anymore while some opportunists are better positioned.

It reflects the difficulty in having a truly independent, non-partisan Senate. Whether it was all elected as before under Thaksin or the current system of mixed elected and appointed, both systems revealed their flaws.

Some serious re-thinking and re-writing needs to be undertaken if the goal is an independent Senate. Simply reverting back to the 1997 Constitution won't improve the situation one iota.

.

[jayboy]

It reflects the difficulty in having a truly independent, non-partisan Senate. Whether it was all elected as before under Thaksin or the current system of mixed elected and appointed, both systems revealed their flaws.

Some serious re-thinking and re-writing needs to be undertaken if the goal is an independent Senate. Simply reverting back to the 1997 Constitution won't improve the situation one iota.

I'm not sure it's possible or even desirable to have a non-partisan Senate.It's almost inevitable allegiances will be one way or the other.Senators of high personal integrity are obviously important.

The trouble with the present system, apart from those currently under discussion, is that it emerged from an illegal and criminal enterprise - the 2006 coup - with a clear undemocratic agenda.No wonder so many Thais , not just redshirts, want nothing to do with it.

For those who are interested in the context here's a useful summary from Daniel Ten Kate, which touches on the lies, cheating and skulduggery of the junta in the process.

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=574&Itemid=31

Edited September 6, 2011 by jayboy

[Buchholz]

It reflects the difficulty in having a truly independent, non-partisan Senate. Whether it was all elected as before under Thaksin or the current system of mixed elected and appointed, both systems revealed their flaws.

Some serious re-thinking and re-writing needs to be undertaken if the goal is an independent Senate. Simply reverting back to the 1997 Constitution won't improve the situation one iota.

I'm not sure it's possible or even desirable to have a non-partisan Senate.It's almost inevitable allegiances will be one way or the other.Senators of high personal integrity are obviously important.

The trouble with the present system, apart from those currently under discussion, is that it emerged from an illegal and criminal enterprise - the 2006 coup - with a clear undemocratic agenda.No wonder so many Thais , not just redshirts, want nothing to do with it.

For those who are interested in the context here's a useful summary from Daniel Ten Kate, which touches on the lies, cheating and skulduggery of the junta in the process.

The trouble with the past system is that control of the elected Senate became a corner stone of Thaksin's dismantling of the checks and balances that the 1997 constitution envisioned.

For anyone interested in why the old system failed and was no better than the current system, useful passages from Baker and Phongpaichit's book on Thaksin are available:

http://books.google.co.th/books?id=bPjRk3FMEJwC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=thaksin+control+senate&source=bl&ots=AFPyWAlI3R&sig=Tp8VT09TcGSkWltawDnNuv9AwlA&hl=en&ei=XdhlTvm8EMTJrAeTzry2Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=42&ved=0CKwCEOgBMCk#v=onepage&q=thaksin%20control%20senate&f=false

As said, until the shortfalls of both systems can be addressed, theres' not much chance of having an independent Senate.

.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Buchholz

[hammered]

It reflects the difficulty in having a truly independent, non-partisan Senate. Whether it was all elected as before under Thaksin or the current system of mixed elected and appointed, both systems revealed their flaws.

Some serious re-thinking and re-writing needs to be undertaken if the goal is an independent Senate. Simply reverting back to the 1997 Constitution won't improve the situation one iota.

I'm not sure it's possible or even desirable to have a non-partisan Senate.It's almost inevitable allegiances will be one way or the other.Senators of high personal integrity are obviously important.

The trouble with the present system, apart from those currently under discussion, is that it emerged from an illegal and criminal enterprise - the 2006 coup - with a clear undemocratic agenda.No wonder so many Thais , not just redshirts, want nothing to do with it.

For those who are interested in the context here's a useful summary from Daniel Ten Kate, which touches on the lies, cheating and skulduggery of the junta in the process.

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=574&Itemid=31

Actually why not have a partisan senate. At least when the people run everybody knows who they stand for and it isnt hidden agenda time and it works in other countries. You could even have say two per province rather than by constituency. Right now there is one per province and then a load of unelected dudes chosen by the smoke filled room brigade to in theory represent weird things but in practice to represent the interests of those in the smoke fuilled rooms, so they get more power than a whole bunch of the electorate. If people are elected to represent a certain group. That group can get rid of them if they dont represent them. That would seem far better than the oddity we have now.

You cant have a democracy where some people or groups get to appoint who they want in large numbers while everyone else gets one vote. Right now it the people of the enitre country chose half and the smoke filled room boys choose the other half

[Buchholz]

Actually why not have a partisan senate. At least when the people run everybody knows who they stand for and it isnt hidden agenda time and it works in other countries.

Perhaps that's the answer as even when the Senate was fully elected and still supposedly non-partisan, there was no shortage of smoke filled room deals that wrested control of these supposedly independent Senators to do the bidding of those in control.

[Thai at Heart]

It reflects the difficulty in having a truly independent, non-partisan Senate. Whether it was all elected as before under Thaksin or the current system of mixed elected and appointed, both systems revealed their flaws.

Some serious re-thinking and re-writing needs to be undertaken if the goal is an independent Senate. Simply reverting back to the 1997 Constitution won't improve the situation one iota.

I'm not sure it's possible or even desirable to have a non-partisan Senate.It's almost inevitable allegiances will be one way or the other.Senators of high personal integrity are obviously important.

The trouble with the present system, apart from those currently under discussion, is that it emerged from an illegal and criminal enterprise - the 2006 coup - with a clear undemocratic agenda.No wonder so many Thais , not just redshirts, want nothing to do with it.

For those who are interested in the context here's a useful summary from Daniel Ten Kate, which touches on the lies, cheating and skulduggery of the junta in the process.

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=574&Itemid=31

Actually why not have a partisan senate. At least when the people run everybody knows who they stand for and it isnt hidden agenda time and it works in other countries. You could even have say two per province rather than by constituency. Right now there is one per province and then a load of unelected dudes chosen by the smoke filled room brigade to in theory represent weird things but in practice to represent the interests of those in the smoke fuilled rooms, so they get more power than a whole bunch of the electorate. If people are elected to represent a certain group. That group can get rid of them if they dont represent them. That would seem far better than the oddity we have now.

You cant have a democracy where some people or groups get to appoint who they want in large numbers while everyone else gets one vote. Right now it the people of the enitre country chose half and the smoke filled room boys choose the other half

Thorny issue to solve, but appointing so many as now is too many. Firstly, they need to ban anything closer than first cousins sitting in both the lower and upper house. Before the coup, it got way out of hand. It is impossible to have a completely unpartisan parliamentary house, so having as many as possible voted in is getting closer to democracy.

Thinking outside the box, how about 20% appointed and the remaining 80% showing the inverse of the election results? PTP cobbles together 55% of the vote, so are allowed 45% of the upper house? but their terms are set up to be split those of the sitting government? Would make for some bloody interesting horse trading. I am sure there will be a million reasons why this won't work, but TIT after all.

[hammered]

Actually why not have a partisan senate. At least when the people run everybody knows who they stand for and it isnt hidden agenda time and it works in other countries.

Perhaps that's the answer as even when the Senate was fully elected and still supposedly non-partisan, there was no shortage of smoke filled room deals that wrested control of these supposedly independent Senators to do the bidding of those in control.

The whole idea of independent senators was fairly utopian as politicians are rarely independent. I guess with party linked senators you would also know the open and hidden agendas. I also remember reading on the Thai webboards the amounts offered to get independent votes in that esteemed establishment. Of course who knows if such gossip is right or not but independents are more vulnerable than those tied to parties who really have to follow the line. Giving people the power of recall over senators may be a good idea too if the one term limit is used again. Lots of possibilities when you think about it

[Thai at Heart]

Actually why not have a partisan senate. At least when the people run everybody knows who they stand for and it isnt hidden agenda time and it works in other countries.

Perhaps that's the answer as even when the Senate was fully elected and still supposedly non-partisan, there was no shortage of smoke filled room deals that wrested control of these supposedly independent Senators to do the bidding of those in control.

The whole idea of independent senators was fairly utopian as politicians are rarely independent. I guess with party linked senators you would also know the open and hidden agendas. I also remember reading on the Thai webboards the amounts offered to get independent votes in that esteemed establishment. Of course who knows if such gossip is right or not but independents are more vulnerable than those tied to parties who really have to follow the line. Giving people the power of recall over senators may be a good idea too if the one term limit is used again. Lots of possibilities when you think about it

Well, as long as people are willing to offer their vote for a fee, the system will continue to fail. Doesn't matter if it is at the bottom end or the top, corruption is EVERYWHERE in the political system here.

[jayboy]

Actually why not have a partisan senate. At least when the people run everybody knows who they stand for and it isnt hidden agenda time and it works in other countries.

Perhaps that's the answer as even when the Senate was fully elected and still supposedly non-partisan, there was no shortage of smoke filled room deals that wrested control of these supposedly independent Senators to do the bidding of those in control.

The whole idea of independent senators was fairly utopian as politicians are rarely independent. I guess with party linked senators you would also know the open and hidden agendas. I also remember reading on the Thai webboards the amounts offered to get independent votes in that esteemed establishment. Of course who knows if such gossip is right or not but independents are more vulnerable than those tied to parties who really have to follow the line. Giving people the power of recall over senators may be a good idea too if the one term limit is used again. Lots of possibilities when you think about it

Some decent posts here.There is a genuine dilemma involved and one facing upper houses the world over.On the one hand to reflect the democratic wishes of the people and on the other to restrain the mob and ill considered populist policies of the lower house - both important tasks and of course in some senses contradictory.

Regardless of content for a moment it's critical that the constitutional process is fair and transparent.That's one of the reasons the the current constitution fails.

In Thailand as a general proposition when the elites talk of independents, they don't of course really mean that at all.