Train Passengers Flee in Panic as Locomotive Catches Fire in Kabin Buri

[webfact]

Charter change may cut appointed senators' terms
Tanatpong Kongsai
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Appointed senators may lose their posts after draft changes to the charter requiring that all senators be elected are passed.

During the House special committee vetting of Article 10 of the charter-amendment bill, Pheu Thai party-list MP Sunai Chulapongsathorn proposed that the terms of all appointed senators be ended once the charter revisions take effect. Elected senators would be allowed to carry out their duties till their terms have ended.

Democrat Bangkok MP Thana Cheeravinit opposed Sunai's proposal, saying appointed senators had taken up their posts legally in accordance with the Constitution. He said appointed senators have contributed to the country and should not be deprived of their constitutional rights. "The country cannot achieve reconciliation if senators are removed because they voice opinions against the government," the Democrat MP said.

The terms of elected senators end in March next year. Appointed senators' terms end in 2017.

The meeting has yet to resolve the issue. Pheu Thai Chiang Rai MP Samart Kaewmeechai proposed an end to the meeting and that a decision be made next week.

Appointed Senator Somchai Sawaeng-karn said the final decision would rest with former PM Thaksin Shinawatra. He said he knew the Pheu Thai Party would resort to this method (to get rid of his group) but lawmakers should realise that the intention of the 1997 constitution, which has been praised as the most democratic charter in the country's history, was to have senators play a role of checks and balances.


-- The Nation 2013-05-02

[tragickingdom]

All dictators find that they have taken up their posts legally. Rape democracy by taking a coup speak with the rubber stamp party of Abhisit give the born losers who never win elections the power and they come up with some form of bogus constitution. Bogus because only in a banana republic constitutions are written every decade. And see you can claim that non elected people are democratically and duly appointed.

Hopefully they cut the terms of these dictators in spa to zero days.

[smutcakes]

Can someone explain to me have Thailand always had these appointed senators?

And what is the negative in having them elected rather than appointed?

[Orac]

Can someone explain to me have Thailand always had these appointed senators?

And what is the negative in having them elected rather than appointed?

Senators were royally appointed until the 1997 consitution which changed it to a wholly elected Senate. After the 2006 this was changed back to 50/50 under the 2007 constitution.

[thaicbr]

Can someone explain to me have Thailand always had these appointed senators?

And what is the negative in having them elected rather than appointed?

You know the answer to question 1 and you have an opinion about question 2. Why don't you just come out and tell us. Stop beating about the bush.

I have a question for you.

What is the negative about having appointed Senators and who appoints them?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[jackspratt]

All dictators find that they have taken up their posts legally. Rape democracy by taking a coup speak with the rubber stamp party of Abhisit give the born losers who never win elections the power and they come up with some form of bogus constitution. Bogus because only in a banana republic constitutions are written every decade. And see you can claim that non elected people are democratically and duly appointed.

Hopefully they cut the terms of these dictators in spa to zero days.

Is there an English translation available for this somewhere?

[smutcakes]

Can someone explain to me have Thailand always had these appointed senators?

And what is the negative in having them elected rather than appointed?

You know the answer to question 1 and you have an opinion about question 2. Why don't you just come out and tell us. Stop beating about the bush.

I have a question for you.

What is the negative about having appointed Senators and who appoints them?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

Can someone explain to me have Thailand always had these appointed senators?

And what is the negative in having them elected rather than appointed?

You know the answer to question 1 and you have an opinion about question 2. Why don't you just come out and tell us. Stop beating about the bush.

I have a question for you.

What is the negative about having appointed Senators and who appoints them?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

I would of thought the problem with this is that whichever party is in power would just appoint senators who are 'friendly' to the party.

I don't really understand what their actual role is.

[MunterHunter]

As long as elected senators are not elected by Parliament, then that's fine.

Otherwise Elected or Appointed, wont matter, the ruling party will just fill the positions with their own lackeys (red or yellow)

The Senators need to be independent to the government/political parties to ensure the spirit and law of democracy isn't rode rough-shot over every time a new party comes in and wants to change everything to suit themselves.

[smutcakes]

As long as elected senators are not elected by Parliament, then that's fine.

Otherwise Elected or Appointed, wont matter, the ruling party will just fill the positions with their own lackeys (red or yellow)

The Senators need to be independent to the government/political parties to ensure the spirit and law of democracy isn't rode rough-shot over every time a new party comes in and wants to change everything to suit themselves.

I agree, but is that even possible. Not just in Thailand, anywhere it would be extremely difficult.

[MunterHunter]

As long as elected senators are not elected by Parliament, then that's fine.

Otherwise Elected or Appointed, wont matter, the ruling party will just fill the positions with their own lackeys (red or yellow)

The Senators need to be independent to the government/political parties to ensure the spirit and law of democracy isn't rode rough-shot over every time a new party comes in and wants to change everything to suit themselves.

I agree, but is that even possible. Not just in Thailand, anywhere it would be extremely difficult.

Agreed - its an 'ideal world' concept

But the system is/will be flawed if the ruling party can just elect/appoint Senators sympathetic to them. Regardless of the 'Colour of the day'

[hellodolly]

All dictators find that they have taken up their posts legally. Rape democracy by taking a coup speak with the rubber stamp party of Abhisit give the born losers who never win elections the power and they come up with some form of bogus constitution. Bogus because only in a banana republic constitutions are written every decade. And see you can claim that non elected people are democratically and duly appointed.

Hopefully they cut the terms of these dictators in spa to zero days.

I may not be a Rhodes Scholar but even I know the present constitution was in place before Abhist came to power.

I think there is a rule on TV against making deliberate false statements.

Given your past history of posts I would say you know that Abhist and the Democrats had nothing to do with writing the constitution. It was in effect two years before they came to power.

[brd199]

As long as elected senators are not elected by Parliament, then that's fine.

Otherwise Elected or Appointed, wont matter, the ruling party will just fill the positions with their own lackeys (red or yellow)

The Senators need to be independent to the government/political parties to ensure the spirit and law of democracy isn't rode rough-shot over every time a new party comes in and wants to change everything to suit themselves.

The independence of the Senate is what faltered during the Thaksin administration. The 1997 Constitution stipulated that the all-elected-Senate was supposed to be non-partisan. That failed during his administration and he gained control of the Senate which then became a meaningless rubber-stamp to whatever his bidding was. The 2007 Constitution attempted to alleviate that by having a mixed appointed-and-elected Senate.

Perhaps the way forward is to have a openly partisan Senate as the supposedly non-partisan aspect seems to be the main hurdle to overcome.

Edited May 2, 2013 by brd199

[hellodolly]

Can someone explain to me have Thailand always had these appointed senators?

And what is the negative in having them elected rather than appointed?

You know the answer to question 1 and you have an opinion about question 2. Why don't you just come out and tell us. Stop beating about the bush.

I have a question for you.

What is the negative about having appointed Senators and who appoints them?

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

In my opinion the negative would be in who appointed them. If Thaksin becomes dictator he can keep the senate and just appoint the people in his pay. With the education system at play here in Thailand and the unwillingness to change it many of the elected senators would be his minions also.

He would use it as an excuse to say no I am not a dictator, You have a Senate.

[thaicbr]

All dictators find that they have taken up their posts legally. Rape democracy by taking a coup speak with the rubber stamp party of Abhisit give the born losers who never win elections the power and they come up with some form of bogus constitution. Bogus because only in a banana republic constitutions are written every decade. And see you can claim that non elected people are democratically and duly appointed.

Hopefully they cut the terms of these dictators in spa to zero days.

Was Yingluck elected prime minister???

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[hellodolly]

As long as elected senators are not elected by Parliament, then that's fine.

Otherwise Elected or Appointed, wont matter, the ruling party will just fill the positions with their own lackeys (red or yellow)

The Senators need to be independent to the government/political parties to ensure the spirit and law of democracy isn't rode rough-shot over every time a new party comes in and wants to change everything to suit themselves.

I agree, but is that even possible. Not just in Thailand, anywhere it would be extremely difficult.

In America and Canada the Supreme courts are appointed and serve a life term. This leads to different decisions over the years as Judges die off and the party that appointed them is no longer in power. It does actually if left alone give a more balanced view on decisions.

In Canada they had a PM named Troudough or some thing like that. back in the 60s. He appointed most of the supreme court judges because some retired and some died. So in effect after he left office his ideas were still controlling the government any thing that went to the supreme court was subject to the decision of people that he liked.

[otherstuff1957]

On this issue I'm going to lean Red rather than Yellow. All legislators, both MPs and Senators, should be elected. Only then can they represent the people.

I would go further and say that all provincial governors should be elected too, just like the Bangkok governor is!

[Robby nz]

Senators were royally appointed until the 1997 consitution which changed it to a wholly elected Senate. After the 2006 this was changed back to 50/50 under the 2007 constitution.

See that word?

So who do you think appoints them, someone the whole country can trust to put independent people with a brain into the job, right?

If they are all to be elected.

Who nominates the candidates?

What qualifications do they need to be eligible for nomination?

Who gets to vote for them?

Incidentally judges should be appointed by the same party.

[brd199]

On this issue I'm going to lean Red rather than Yellow. All legislators, both MPs and Senators, should be elected. Only then can they represent the people.

I would go further and say that all provincial governors should be elected too, just like the Bangkok governor is!

It's not a red and yellow issue, but I would add the caveat that all legislators, both MPs and Senators, should be partisan.

It's a fallacy to think Senators can be non-partisan as stipulated by both '97 and the '07 Constitutions. Under all administrations, they've proven that's not possible.

I agree the governors should also be all elected and partisan as well.

[jackspratt]

Senators were royally appointed until the 1997 consitution which changed it to a wholly elected Senate. After the 2006 this was changed back to 50/50 under the 2007 constitution.

See that word?

So who do you think appoints them, someone the whole country can trust to put independent people with a brain into the job, right?

If they are all to be elected.

Who nominates the candidates?

What qualifications do they need to be eligible for nomination?

Who gets to vote for them?

Incidentally judges should be appointed by the same party.

Very hard to adequately respond to this post, but the first word that sprang into my head was "naive".

[MunterHunter]

So would something like National Elections for Senators work? Would need a more open and transparent voting process however to prevent vote-buying and bullying etc (the areas flawed currently in Thailand's election process)

I would be very nervous of Parliament voting in Senators, this would lead to the ruling party forcing through whomever was sympathetic to their cause at the expense of a fair and balanced system. Checks and balances need to exist otherwise you will have a full constitution rewrite shortly after every election

[Robby nz]

Very hard to adequately respond to this post, but the first word that sprang into my head was "naive".

You have to do better than an insult mate.

Try answering the three questions for a start.

And pray tell would be wrong with the King appointing senators and judges in order to keep politics out of the appointments.

[Thai at Heart]

An element of appointed senators is not a problem to me, depending on how you go about appointing them. It isn't enough to appont them because they can't stand Thaksin, but appointing people who genuinely want and know how to serve the country is ok with me. Whether the amount of appointed senators should make up a majority is a little doubtful to me though.

The appointed element shouldn't make up 50%. I mean, how badly supported can the Democrats be if they can't make up 20% of all the senators in the chamber.

[Orac]

Very hard to adequately respond to this post, but the first word that sprang into my head was "naive".

You have to do better than an insult mate.

Try answering the three questions for a start.

And pray tell would be wrong with the King appointing senators and judges in order to keep politics out of the appointments.

The potential problem is that, although they are royally appointed, they are selected by committees so, in practice, His Majesty is endorsing a selection made by others. Since the bulk of the committee appointing the senators comes from the judiciary and the senate has a huge part to play in the appointment and selection of the judiciary there is a potential conflict of interest here.

[brd199]

An element of appointed senators is not a problem to me, depending on how you go about appointing them. It isn't enough to appont them because they can't stand Thaksin, but appointing people who genuinely want and know how to serve the country is ok with me. Whether the amount of appointed senators should make up a majority is a little doubtful to me though.

The appointed element shouldn't make up 50%. I mean, how badly supported can the Democrats be if they can't make up 20% of all the senators in the chamber.

The appointed Senators do not make up the majority. There are 76 elected Senators (one per province) and 74 appointed. This will change in the next election with the additional new province (77 elected/73 appointed).

None of the elected/appointed Senators are Democrats. Nor are they Pheu Thai (or any other party). By edict, they are all ostensibly non-partisan.

.

[brd199]

Very hard to adequately respond to this post, but the first word that sprang into my head was "naive".

You have to do better than an insult mate.

Try answering the three questions for a start.

And pray tell would be wrong with the King appointing senators and judges in order to keep politics out of the appointments.

The potential problem is that, although they are royally appointed, they are selected by committees so, in practice, His Majesty is endorsing a selection made by others. Since the bulk of the committee appointing the senators comes from the judiciary and the senate has a huge part to play in the appointment and selection of the judiciary there is a potential conflict of interest here.

While the judiciary are included, the bulk of the committee does NOT come from the judiciary.

The Senate Selection Committee includes:

1. President of the Constitutional Court

2. Chairperson of the Election Commission

3. President of the Ombudsmen

4. Chairperson of the National Counter Corruption Commission

5. Chairperson of the State Audit Commission

6. A judge of the Supreme Court

7. A judge of the Supreme Administrative Court

[rubl]

The 2007 constitution indeed reserved a quota for Senators to be appointed. I'm a bit indifferent to that although with the shenanigans in Thai politics having (hopefully) non-political appointees makes sense.

Anyway the 2007 constitution also had a much clearer list of requirements for anyone to be able to stand for election or selection as Senator. Those clear requirements are not to be changed!

[jackspratt]

Very hard to adequately respond to this post, but the first word that sprang into my head was "naive".

You have to do better than an insult mate.

Try answering the three questions for a start.

And pray tell would be wrong with the King appointing senators and judges in order to keep politics out of the appointments.

The potential problem is that, although they are royally appointed, they are selected by committees so, in practice, His Majesty is endorsing a selection made by others. Since the bulk of the committee appointing the senators comes from the judiciary and the senate has a huge part to play in the appointment and selection of the judiciary there is a potential conflict of interest here.

While the judiciary are included, the bulk of the committee does NOT come from the judiciary.

The Senate Selection Committee includes:

1. President of the Constitutional Court

2. Chairperson of the Election Commission

3. President of the Ombudsmen

4. Chairperson of the National Counter Corruption Commission

5. Chairperson of the State Audit Commission

6. A judge of the Supreme Court

7. A judge of the Supreme Administrative Court

I.E. - the appointments are rubber stamped.

As for the "3 questions" - that should be in the hand of the Thai population, via the constitution. But there are plenty of examples from all over the world - or just over the Tasman Sea if you cared to look.

Contrary to what a great many Thais, and seemingly a few naive farangs believe, all wisdom in Thailand does not reside in a single place.