Suthep ready to quit and join anti-government rally

[webfact]

POLITICS
Suthep ready to quit and join anti-government rally
Pimnara Pradubwit
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Democrat Surat Thani MP Suthep Thaugsuban has said he is willing to quit his MP post anytime in order to join antigovernment rallies in and out of Parliament.

He said the government is pushing for the passage of legislation that is dangerous for the country, for instance the charter amendment on the selection of Senators, so he must put up a tough fight in Parliament first to save the country.

"People who do not look at the issue deeply may overlook it, thinking it is trivial. However, if Senators were to be elected, they would be under the influence of politicians who will be able to control the appointment of independent agencies. This which does not bode well for the country," he said.

The Democrat Party is fighting to have MPs appointed by having various professional groups nominate their candidates.


-- The Nation 2013-08-22

[soundman]

In any normal democracy having anything but an elected senator would be absurd, however, having elected senators in Thailand is almost the same as having your own personal rubber stamp.

The senate is the last line of scrutiny/defense against un-ethical or megalomaniacal politicians and if the senators are elected, we all know who their allegiance will be to.

The democrats are right to go on the warpath, however, as an aside I fear it will make the amnesty issue slide through almost un-noticed.

[Zolt]

The democrats are right to go on the warpath, however, as an aside I fear it will make the amnesty issue slide through almost un-noticed.

... which might very well be the whole point of this.

Very few countries do, in fact, elect their senators directly.

[smutcakes]

I am not sure i am i am being stupid but i don't really see how having elected or selected senators really makes that much of a difference corruption wise.

Even if all 150 are selected I don't see how that makes them immune from corruption once they are in the position or why they should not get their head turned should an 'opportunity' arise.

As with all institutions in Thailand you would hope this level would be immune to corruption, but as we have found out recently in the case of the monk, it seems nothing in Thailand is immune from it.

What there any specific reason why the 2007 amendment changed this section, or the reason for it? was there a previous problem with it?

[Thai at Heart]

In any normal democracy having anything but an elected senator would be absurd, however, having elected senators in Thailand is almost the same as having your own personal rubber stamp.

The senate is the last line of scrutiny/defense against un-ethical or megalomaniacal politicians and if the senators are elected, we all know who their allegiance will be to.

The democrats are right to go on the warpath, however, as an aside I fear it will make the amnesty issue slide through almost un-noticed.

I don't see any issue with an element of Appointed senators if their job is to serve the good of the country. The issue is the whole process by which they appear to write legislation here.

Still haven't worked it out.

[animatic]

"...if Senators were to be elected, they would be under the influence of politicians who will be able to control the appointment of independent agencies. This which does not bode well for the country,"

IN a nutshell.

Independant agencies are the checks and balances,

and they also deal with contracts and abuses.

Edited August 22, 2013 by animatic

[ginjag]

"...if Senators were to be elected, they would be under the influence of politicians who will be able to control the appointment of independent agencies. This which does not bode well for the country,"

IN a nutshell.

Independant agencies are the checks and balances,

and they also deal with contracts and abuses.

Anything to further the cause Will be implemented.

Can we call most politicians, politicians or nominees.???

[Robby nz]

It would seem that it is not only the elected or appointed thing that is the problem

PT want to remove the bits that prevent wives, husbands, children, party execs and other family members and associates of sitting MP's or cabinet members from being senators.

This would allow, for instance a man who was an MP to have his wife as a senator.

This leaves the way open for the ruling party (family) to have control of the house and the senate and therefor control of the appointments to what are supposed to be independent agencies, therefore control of them also.

All checks and balances removed.

[Thai at Heart]

It would seem that it is not only the elected or appointed thing that is the problem

PT want to remove the bits that prevent wives, husbands, children, party execs and other family members and associates of sitting MP's or cabinet members from being senators.

This would allow, for instance a man who was an MP to have his wife as a senator.

This leaves the way open for the ruling party (family) to have control of the house and the senate and therefor control of the appointments to what are supposed to be independent agencies, therefore control of them also.

All checks and balances removed.

Simply solved. Cannot have direct family members in both houses . also sitting mps should retire at 62. Banharn coming back at 80 is a joke.

[siampolee]

My experiences regarding an un-elected second chamber were and are all with the House of Lords ( That other Place) in the U.K. However the rights of hereditary peers were removed and thus the then government and to a lesser degree subsequent governments packed the place with ''instant plastic lords and ladies most it seems in my view came free with ones morning cornflakes.

A very close friend was the leader of the House of Lord for a number of years and in fact he still attends the house due to the fact that he was one of the hereditary peers who survived the cull and the replanting of the synthetic peers. He was a dedicated politician and belonged to a political party as did many others and the party representation as pretty even across the board, then one had the ''cross benches'' members, no solid political beliefs but like the great majority of members at the time they were committed to serving their country.

The effort put in in scrutinizing government bills was enormous and many a bill considered detrimental to the nation were sent back to the lower chamber ( the elected M.P.s who made up Parliament) for amendments which when put in place meant the bill could be submitted to The House of Lords for consideration and often one amendment was enough and in fact many a bils progressed through the House of Lords unimpeded however in some cases some bills were withdrawn by the government of the day or by their sponsors.

The House of Lords was a valuable check and balance mechanism, yes indeed it may have been a trifle archaic but it worked well, democracy thrived. due to the diligence and the commitment of the House of Lords and its members. Indeed the early years of Life peers being created and being able to sit i the House was a breath of fresh air, however now sadly such a creation is no more than a sop to money or outright political power or a reward for deeds that were possibly not in the nations best interest business or politically or socially wise

Remember though that the House of Lords could not stop a bill going through but they could and did delay controversial bills and returned them to the to the lower chamber three times only The only way a parliamentary bill could fail to be enacted and placed upon the statute books was if the Sovereign of the day refused to give the bill royal assent. The last sovereign to refuse assent and not sign the bills was Queen Victoria.

An elected upper or second chamber or a ''made to measure synthetic one is nothing more than an unbridled extension of the power of the government of the day., Any reform of the Senate here is for the benefit of one person, his family and their brown nosing acolytes and such a move must be stopped to ensure what currently passe for democracy here survives unscathed.

Whilst I am not a fan of Suthep I can see his point. More power to his elbow in this matter

Edited August 22, 2013 by siampolee

[pedro01]

Who wants to bet that no matter what - Suthep will NOT quit?

Suthep will quit the day Thaksin comes back and leads from the front.

[Noistar]

It would seem that it is not only the elected or appointed thing that is the problem

PT want to remove the bits that prevent wives, husbands, children, party execs and other family members and associates of sitting MP's or cabinet members from being senators.

This would allow, for instance a man who was an MP to have his wife as a senator.

This leaves the way open for the ruling party (family) to have control of the house and the senate and therefor control of the appointments to what are supposed to be independent agencies, therefore control of them also.

All checks and balances removed.

Isn't that the long-term goal of this government?

Remove any legal resistance via the courts - can't have them making any more wrong decisions like convicting KT and holding up the Whitewash Bill.

Any further changes just further that aim.

Anybody believe they'll achieve their goals unchecked?

[philw]

"Hear , hear, pip, pip."

It just shouldn't be that the "hoi poloi" or great unwashed have electoral control over those who make the laws.

The record of hereditary peers in the UK is truly abysmal , with a capital F.

Please tell me why a person should have political power because of his blood line ??

( and i am not talking about the Shinawatra family, so no red herring please. )

Do you know who appoints the senate here ??

How they get their position ???

Does your final paragraph refer to the USA ??

[thaicbr]

"Hear , hear, pip, pip."

It just shouldn't be that the "hoi poloi" or great unwashed have electoral control over those who make the laws.

 

The record of hereditary peers in the UK is truly abysmal , with a capital F.

 

Please tell me why a person should have political power because of his blood line ??

( and i am not talking about the Shinawatra family, so no red herring please. )

 

Do you know who appoints the senate here ??

How they get their position ???

 

Does your final paragraph refer to the USA ??

 

 

Google is your friend.

I agree about hereditary.. not good.. but it's kinda what we have in Thailand. Whole families of politician's just waiting to take over from each other. Or who are in every part of politics. Governor etc

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[thaicbr]

Personally I hope Suthep DOES resign. He is a dinosaur.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[whybother]

Personally I hope Suthep DOES resign. He is a dinosaur.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

There wouldn't be too many people that would be sad at his resignation, but the issue really isn't about appointed senators.

The issue is about the corruption. The appointed senators is the only thing that is stopping Thaksin from getting a real hold on doing what he wants. That doesn't mean that the other side is any less corrupt, but at the moment the senate seems to be what is stopping Thaksin getting full control of the corruption.

[rubl]

I am not sure i am i am being stupid but i don't really see how having elected or selected senators really makes that much of a difference corruption wise.

Even if all 150 are selected I don't see how that makes them immune from corruption once they are in the position or why they should not get their head turned should an 'opportunity' arise.

As with all institutions in Thailand you would hope this level would be immune to corruption, but as we have found out recently in the case of the monk, it seems nothing in Thailand is immune from it.

What there any specific reason why the 2007 amendment changed this section, or the reason for it? was there a previous problem with it?

It would seem you answered your own question, my dear smutty

BTW, from another topic

"Under the current Constitution of 2007, there are 150 senators. Of these, 77 are elected (one from each province) and the remainder are appointed by a selection committee consisting of independent organisation heads."

Oh, and the current constitution lest the senators having a six-year break between (s)election whereas the proposed amentments will allow immediate re-election. And family members can stand, and so forth and so on.

Edited August 22, 2013 by rubl

[MrSlatersParrot]

My experiences regarding an un-elected second chamber were and are all with the House of Lords ( That other Place) in the U.K. However the rights of hereditary peers were removed and thus the then government and to a lesser degree subsequent governments packed the place with ''instant plastic lords and ladies most it seems in my view came free with ones morning cornflakes.

A very close friend was the leader of the House of Lord for a number of years and in fact he still attends the house due to the fact that he was one of the hereditary peers who survived the cull and the replanting of the synthetic peers. He was a dedicated politician and belonged to a political party as did many others and the party representation as pretty even across the board, then one had the ''cross benches'' members, no solid political beliefs but like the great majority of members at the time they were committed to serving their country.

The effort put in in scrutinizing government bills was enormous and many a bill considered detrimental to the nation were sent back to the lower chamber ( the elected M.P.s who made up Parliament) for amendments which when put in place meant the bill could be submitted to The House of Lords for consideration and often one amendment was enough and in fact many a bils progressed through the House of Lords unimpeded however in some cases some bills were withdrawn by the government of the day or by their sponsors.

The House of Lords was a valuable check and balance mechanism, yes indeed it may have been a trifle archaic but it worked well, democracy thrived. due to the diligence and the commitment of the House of Lords and its members. Indeed the early years of Life peers being created and being able to sit i the House was a breath of fresh air, however now sadly such a creation is no more than a sop to money or outright political power or a reward for deeds that were possibly not in the nations best interest business or politically or socially wise

Remember though that the House of Lords could not stop a bill going through but they could and did delay controversial bills and returned them to the to the lower chamber three times only The only way a parliamentary bill could fail to be enacted and placed upon the statute books was if the Sovereign of the day refused to give the bill royal assent. The last sovereign to refuse assent and not sign the bills was Queen Victoria.

An elected upper or second chamber or a ''made to measure synthetic one is nothing more than an unbridled extension of the power of the government of the day., Any reform of the Senate here is for the benefit of one person, his family and their brown nosing acolytes and such a move must be stopped to ensure what currently passe for democracy here survives unscathed.

Whilst I am not a fan of Suthep I can see his point. More power to his elbow in this matter

you started alright but then you veered off onto well trodden "the whole brainwashed anti Thaksin debate." Or that in my view.

As I posited, in another thread, if the apponted senators are doing such a fine job they ought to be unafraid to face the electorate.

The fact remains that consistently as a group they keep trying to sabotage any government sponsored changes.

None of these appointees are hereditory peers, princes anyone?

No they were put there to do a job.....

[Robby nz]

Simply solved. Cannot have direct family members in both houses . also sitting mps should retire at 62. Banharn coming back at 80 is a joke.

Agree with that T a H but isn't the first bit pretty much what they have now and what PT want to change.

[Noistar]

My experiences regarding an un-elected second chamber were and are all with the House of Lords ( That other Place) in the U.K. However the rights of hereditary peers were removed and thus the then government and to a lesser degree subsequent governments packed the place with ''instant plastic lords and ladies most it seems in my view came free with ones morning cornflakes.

A very close friend was the leader of the House of Lord for a number of years and in fact he still attends the house due to the fact that he was one of the hereditary peers who survived the cull and the replanting of the synthetic peers. He was a dedicated politician and belonged to a political party as did many others and the party representation as pretty even across the board, then one had the ''cross benches'' members, no solid political beliefs but like the great majority of members at the time they were committed to serving their country.

The effort put in in scrutinizing government bills was enormous and many a bill considered detrimental to the nation were sent back to the lower chamber ( the elected M.P.s who made up Parliament) for amendments which when put in place meant the bill could be submitted to The House of Lords for consideration and often one amendment was enough and in fact many a bils progressed through the House of Lords unimpeded however in some cases some bills were withdrawn by the government of the day or by their sponsors.

The House of Lords was a valuable check and balance mechanism, yes indeed it may have been a trifle archaic but it worked well, democracy thrived. due to the diligence and the commitment of the House of Lords and its members. Indeed the early years of Life peers being created and being able to sit i the House was a breath of fresh air, however now sadly such a creation is no more than a sop to money or outright political power or a reward for deeds that were possibly not in the nations best interest business or politically or socially wise

Remember though that the House of Lords could not stop a bill going through but they could and did delay controversial bills and returned them to the to the lower chamber three times only The only way a parliamentary bill could fail to be enacted and placed upon the statute books was if the Sovereign of the day refused to give the bill royal assent. The last sovereign to refuse assent and not sign the bills was Queen Victoria.

An elected upper or second chamber or a ''made to measure synthetic one is nothing more than an unbridled extension of the power of the government of the day., Any reform of the Senate here is for the benefit of one person, his family and their brown nosing acolytes and such a move must be stopped to ensure what currently passe for democracy here survives unscathed.

Whilst I am not a fan of Suthep I can see his point. More power to his elbow in this matter

you started alright but then you veered off onto well trodden "the whole brainwashed anti Thaksin debate." Or that in my view.

As I posited, in another thread, if the apponted senators are doing such a fine job they ought to be unafraid to face the electorate.

The fact remains that consistently as a group they keep trying to sabotage any government sponsored changes.

None of these appointees are hereditory peers, princes anyone?

No they were put there to do a job.....

So, if PT (ie Thaksin) are acknowledged to win parliamentary elections, how would senatorial elections produce a non-identical result?

PT x 2 - I hear the cry "it's what the electorate voted for"

A 2nd chamber exists to make parliament think again, not to stop Bills. What's your objection to PT being asked to think? I have my opinion

[Nickymaster]

So next on Thaksin's agenda is judges elected by PT?

[smutcakes]

So next on Thaksin's agenda is judges elected by PT?

Why not? If its good enough for an unelected army to do, why not an elected Government.

[bigbamboo]

My experiences regarding an un-elected second chamber were and are all with the House of Lords ( That other Place) in the U.K. However the rights of hereditary peers were removed and thus the then government and to a lesser degree subsequent governments packed the place with ''instant plastic lords and ladies most it seems in my view came free with ones morning cornflakes.

A very close friend was the leader of the House of Lord for a number of years and in fact he still attends the house due to the fact that he was one of the hereditary peers who survived the cull and the replanting of the synthetic peers. He was a dedicated politician and belonged to a political party as did many others and the party representation as pretty even across the board, then one had the ''cross benches'' members, no solid political beliefs but like the great majority of members at the time they were committed to serving their country.

The effort put in in scrutinizing government bills was enormous and many a bill considered detrimental to the nation were sent back to the lower chamber ( the elected M.P.s who made up Parliament) for amendments which when put in place meant the bill could be submitted to The House of Lords for consideration and often one amendment was enough and in fact many a bils progressed through the House of Lords unimpeded however in some cases some bills were withdrawn by the government of the day or by their sponsors.

The House of Lords was a valuable check and balance mechanism, yes indeed it may have been a trifle archaic but it worked well, democracy thrived. due to the diligence and the commitment of the House of Lords and its members. Indeed the early years of Life peers being created and being able to sit i the House was a breath of fresh air, however now sadly such a creation is no more than a sop to money or outright political power or a reward for deeds that were possibly not in the nations best interest business or politically or socially wise

Remember though that the House of Lords could not stop a bill going through but they could and did delay controversial bills and returned them to the to the lower chamber three times only The only way a parliamentary bill could fail to be enacted and placed upon the statute books was if the Sovereign of the day refused to give the bill royal assent. The last sovereign to refuse assent and not sign the bills was Queen Victoria.

An elected upper or second chamber or a ''made to measure synthetic one is nothing more than an unbridled extension of the power of the government of the day., Any reform of the Senate here is for the benefit of one person, his family and their brown nosing acolytes and such a move must be stopped to ensure what currently passe for democracy here survives unscathed.

Whilst I am not a fan of Suthep I can see his point. More power to his elbow in this matter

you started alright but then you veered off onto well trodden "the whole brainwashed anti Thaksin debate." Or that in my view.

As I posited, in another thread, if the apponted senators are doing such a fine job they ought to be unafraid to face the electorate.

The fact remains that consistently as a group they keep trying to sabotage any government sponsored changes.

None of these appointees are hereditory peers, princes anyone?

No they were put there to do a job.....

So, if PT (ie Thaksin) are acknowledged to win parliamentary elections, how would senatorial elections produce a non-identical result?

PT x 2 - I hear the cry "it's what the electorate voted for"

A 2nd chamber exists to make parliament think again, not to stop Bills. What's your objection to PT being asked to think? I have my opinion

I believe that would require expensive and time consuming retraining. According to their leader their job is only to act.

[Nickymaster]

So next on Thaksin's agenda is judges elected by PT?

Why not? If its good enough for an unelected army to do, why not an elected Government.

Revealing your true colors there smutcakes.

[smutcakes]

So next on Thaksin's agenda is judges elected by PT?

Why not? If its good enough for an unelected army to do, why not an elected Government.

Revealing your true colors there smutcakes.

Of course its a flippant comment, but i can understand how many people who perhaps do not think to deeply about this kind of thing can see it as a fair comment, rightly or wrongly.

In a very simplified summary, many people would see that many Governments including the previous ones amended the constitution, now the PTP try to do it and its ohhhh no you cannot. The recent army government amended the rules behind senator selection criteria, the PTP Government try and do it and its ooohhh no you cannot etc etc I am not saying its right the PTP trying to change this things, or that it would be beneficial or detrimental to the country, but on a very simplistic level I am sure its how many see it.

[jayboy]

Even The Nation has contempt for the way the Democrats are behaving.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Negative-tactics-by-Democrat-Party-not-winning-it--30213290.html

[PhilipCook]

breaking bad

[Thai at Heart]

Simply solved. Cannot have direct family members in both houses . also sitting mps should retire at 62. Banharn coming back at 80 is a joke.

Agree with that T a H but isn't the first bit pretty much what they have now and what PT want to change.

Well, part of the problem is that the appointed group are there not really to act as an independent barometer, but to be grossly anti government. There are a lot of reactionaries on the other side of the political fence.

I go with an appointed portion and an elected portion, but they go about appointing now is cloaked in secrecy. Why not have a rotating number of appointed senators with a maximum sitting of say 10 years. Every year appoint 3 or 4 new ones to replace 3 or 4 retirees?

Many ways to skin a cat.

[Baerboxer]

"Hear , hear, pip, pip."

It just shouldn't be that the "hoi poloi" or great unwashed have electoral control over those who make the laws.

The record of hereditary peers in the UK is truly abysmal , with a capital F.

Please tell me why a person should have political power because of his blood line ??

( and i am not talking about the Shinawatra family, so no red herring please. )

Do you know who appoints the senate here ??

How they get their position ???

Does your final paragraph refer to the USA ??

Siampolee's comments on the House of Lords evolution are pretty accurate. Now it has many appointed for doing "favours" for political parties and they are expected to tow the party line once sitting in the House.

Bloodlines should not be the route to political power - but do some research and see in just how many so called "Western democracies" this happens. Have a look at the lineage of current leading British politicians for instance. Some interesting surprises if you go back several generations.

Details of how senators are appointed in Thailand are covered in another thread in detail.

There is no doubt that the Shins would like to create a political dynastic family - but they ain't unique in the world for this.

[Arkady]

"...if Senators were to be elected, they would be under the influence of politicians who will be able to control the appointment of independent agencies. This which does not bode well for the country,"

IN a nutshell.

Independant agencies are the checks and balances,

and they also deal with contracts and abuses.

The independent agencies are definitely the target of this legislation. Dr T has vowed revenge on them and they will swept away, leaving nothing between him and absolute power.