Suthep: No reform, no election

[pookiki]

Despite all the rhetoric about logic and debate, at the end of the day those with most votes win the argument.

You should probably read that rhetoric more closely.

I am talking about Parliamentary reform so that the party with most votes does not have an automatic right to force things through or hog the agenda. I would criticise other nations around the world for this same reason, although much less so than here in Thailand.

Being elected as the Leading party should not mean you control the Parliamentary system, it is like you are hijacking a plane, a powerful machine capable of flying at high speed, but if you just hijack it and don't know anything about flying planes at speed, and you refuse to listen to veteran pilots offering you helpful advice, you can crash it. I propose anti-hijack security measures to be fitted to the Parliamentary aircraft.

I propose that changing this in Thailand, to the Parliamentary system attributes I listed above^ would solve the power-struggles here overnight and give rise to genuine Democratic progress and national development.

As I read your post, you are saying that MPs in Thailand are less experienced with the mechanics of democracy than those in Europe and other countries that use a Parliamentary system? Most political parties with which I am familiar have a party platform and those MPs in the party are supposed to have the discipline to adhere to the provisions of the platform. The party platform is the 'agenda'. If a party is fortunate enough to enjoy a majority, I am at a complete loss to understand how using their political power to pass the measures in their platform is an abuse of power. As far as I know all democratic bodies in the world have rules. Most of the rules allow the 'minority' party to only delay the agenda of the majority not to block it. And I think it is safe to say that all legislative bodies have a rule that allow the body to vote to limit or end debate. Under 'Robert's Rules of Order' - the standard relied on by most legislative bodies, a motion to limit debate takes precedence over all other pending motions. Once debate is stopped, then a vote on the pending motion is in order. I am a loss to understand the rules to which you refer give the minority a right to prevent the majority from ultimately enforcing their will on the minority no matter how spirited the debate or the 'logic' applied. IF, I was a member of a political party, I would be philosophically aligned with the principles of that party. If didn't align myself with the purpose, party platform, etc., there would be much reason for the existence of political parties at all. And I would note, the MPs in Europe follow the 'party line' much more strictly than other places of which I am aware.

Edited December 16, 2013 by pookiki

[indyuk]

So this is Anti Thaksin but only the other way around...

To compare Thaksin with an incompetent trouble maker trouble maker is a strange thing for any well informed person to say. The people want peace and security not a communist revolution from a dictator that paves his progress with threats.

[indyuk]

Despite all the rhetoric about logic and debate, at the end of the day those with most votes win the argument.

You should probably read that rhetoric more closely.

I am talking about Parliamentary reform so that the party with most votes does not have an automatic right to force things through or hog the agenda. I would criticise other nations around the world for this same reason, although much less so than here in Thailand.

Being elected as the Leading party should not mean you control the Parliamentary system, it is like you are hijacking a plane, a powerful machine capable of flying at high speed, but if you just hijack it and don't know anything about flying planes at speed, and you refuse to listen to veteran pilots offering you helpful advice, you can crash it. I propose anti-hijack security measures to be fitted to the Parliamentary aircraft.

I propose that changing this in Thailand, to the Parliamentary system attributes I listed above^ would solve the power-struggles here overnight and give rise to genuine Democratic progress and national development.

As I read your post, you are saying that MPs in Thailand are less experienced with the mechanics of democracy than those in Europe and other countries that use a Parliamentary system? Most political parties with which I am familiar have a party platform and those MPs in the party are supposed to have the discipline to adhere to the provisions of the platform. The party platform is the 'agenda'. If a party is fortunate enough to enjoy a majority, I am at a complete loss to understand how using their political power to pass the measures in their platform is an abuse of power. As far as I know all democratic bodies in the world have rules. Most of the rules allow the 'minority' party to only delay the agenda of the majority not to block it. And I think it is safe to say that all legislative bodies have a rule that allow the body to vote to limit or end debate. Under 'Robert's Rules of Order' - the standard relied on by most legislative bodies, a motion to limit debate takes precedence over all other pending motions. Once debate is stopped, then a vote on the pending motion is in order. I am a loss to understand the rules to which you refer give the minority a right to prevent the majority from ultimately enforcing their will on the minority no matter how spirited the debate or the 'logic' applied. IF, I was a member of a political party, I would be philosophically aligned with the principles of that party. If didn't align myself with the purpose, party platform, etc., there would be much reason for the existence of political parties at all. And I would note, the MPs in Europe follow the 'party line' much more strictly than other places of which I am aware.

An outstanding precis of democratic principle and objectiveness.

[indyuk]

The Dictator has spoken with threats again. On whose authority does he speak. It is certainly not what the people seem to want.

[Yunla]

As I read your post, you are saying that MPs in Thailand are less experienced with the mechanics of democracy than those in Europe and other countries that use a Parliamentary system? Most political parties with which I am familiar have a party platform and those MPs in the party are supposed to have the discipline to adhere to the provisions of the platform. The party platform is the 'agenda'. If a party is fortunate enough to enjoy a majority, I am at a complete loss to understand how using their political power to pass the measures in their platform is an abuse of power. As far as I know all democratic bodies in the world have rules. Most of the rules allow the 'minority' party to only delay the agenda of the majority not to block it. And I think it is safe to say that all legislative bodies have a rule that allow the body to vote to limit or end debate. Under 'Robert's Rules of Order' - the standard relied on by most legislative bodies, a motion to limit debate takes precedence over all other pending motions. Once debate is stopped, then a vote on the pending motion is in order. I am a loss to understand the rules to which you refer give the minority a right to prevent the majority from ultimately enforcing their will on the minority no matter how spirited the debate or the 'logic' applied. IF, I was a member of a political party, I would be philosophically aligned with the principles of that party. If didn't align myself with the purpose, party platform, etc., there would be much reason for the existence of political parties at all. And I would note, the MPs in Europe follow the 'party line' much more strictly than other places of which I am aware.

Yingluck, who should be leading by example, as she is PM (lol), had a Parliament attendance rate of 5%~ at some point. I forget the exact figure. But that would be a good starting point for Parliamentary reform. We can move on to House Speakers taking orders from overseas criminals, and not being sacked for it, policy gridlock without a rational queueing system for priority policies, etc. The current system here fails hard, and there is a long list of things they can implement in Parliament to make it work.

Again you respond to my posts without really reading them. I already said stop comparing my analysis of Parliamentary Democracy to other places round the world, as I have already said in this thread I criticise those other nations too for not fulfilling a more perfect Parliamentary system. There is an ideal, and I am saying how Thailand can head in the right direction to approach that ideal.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Yunla

[Spare]

As I read your post, you are saying that MPs in Thailand are less experienced with the mechanics of democracy than those in Europe and other countries that use a Parliamentary system? Most political parties with which I am familiar have a party platform and those MPs in the party are supposed to have the discipline to adhere to the provisions of the platform. The party platform is the 'agenda'. If a party is fortunate enough to enjoy a majority, I am at a complete loss to understand how using their political power to pass the measures in their platform is an abuse of power. As far as I know all democratic bodies in the world have rules. Most of the rules allow the 'minority' party to only delay the agenda of the majority not to block it. And I think it is safe to say that all legislative bodies have a rule that allow the body to vote to limit or end debate. Under 'Robert's Rules of Order' - the standard relied on by most legislative bodies, a motion to limit debate takes precedence over all other pending motions. Once debate is stopped, then a vote on the pending motion is in order. I am a loss to understand the rules to which you refer give the minority a right to prevent the majority from ultimately enforcing their will on the minority no matter how spirited the debate or the 'logic' applied. IF, I was a member of a political party, I would be philosophically aligned with the principles of that party. If didn't align myself with the purpose, party platform, etc., there would be much reason for the existence of political parties at all. And I would note, the MPs in Europe follow the 'party line' much more strictly than other places of which I am aware.

Yingluck, who should be leading by example, as she is PM (lol), had a Parliament attendance rate of 5%~ at some point. I forget the exact figure. But that would be a good starting point for Parliamentary reform. We can move on to House Speakers taking orders from overseas criminals, and not being sacked for it, policy gridlock without a rational queueing system for priority policies, etc. The current system here fails hard, and there is a long list of things they can implement in Parliament to make it work.

Again you respond to my posts without really reading them. I already said stop comparing my analysis of Parliamentary Democracy to other places round the world, as I have already said in this thread I criticise those other nations too for not fulfilling a more perfect Parliamentary system. There is an ideal, and I am saying how Thailand can head in the right direction to approach that ideal.

I think it is her job to lead her party.

It is the party job to attend parliament.

[Yunla]

I think it is her job to lead her party.

It is the party job to attend parliament.

You are really micro-splicing semantics here but ok, from wiki ;

"The prime minister is often, but not always, a member of parliament and is expected with other ministers to ensure the passage of bills through the legislature."

But there is also something called common sense. The PM is head of the Cabinet, she is *often* a member of Parliament, and also she is expected to lead from the front. A good PM should attend Parliament dutifully, and field Debates and accept all challenges robustly.That is important, as it sets an example to her followers. Also, that is only one small factor which needs to be resolved in Thai Parliament, it needs an independent watchdog to keep it running at a respectable speed, and to stop what has happened this last two years ; thaksin passport / repatriation being headline events in Parliament when in fact they should never have made it through the door. So screening and queueing of policy proposals, and of all conduct including the House Speaker. It is far too lax here. That is not to say other nations have got it right, and I have got 30 years of criticising other nations for their failings in Parliamentary protocol too. The key, as I said originally, is to embrace the true spirit of Democracy which is the duty of people to engage in Debate, by talking things through at lengtth, issues are resolved and consensus is reached. It doesn't make everyone live happily ever after, but its a lot better than the situation we are now looking at here which is autocratic. As a final example before I leave this thread, I've lost count of the times in real life people I know are fighting for years over trivial things, until they are forced to sit down and talk about it and air their *reasons* and actually listen to the other person. It works, it really is good to talk. And if you are a politician your job is to Debate, simple as that, everything else follows on from the outcome of Debating issues that are raised by the electorate.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Yunla

[cacruden]

Most prime ministers do not field questions etc., and even when they do it is usually just limited to Question Period (a few hours a week). Even when questions are directed at the Prime Minister the Minister in charge of that department will often stand to respond. 5% sounds low, but I would not expect it to be high since in a Parliamentary system they are filling many hats - one is in parliament, international travel, talking with foreign diplomats, etc. Rarely does a Prime Minister spend the majority of their time in parliament. They will show up for close votes, etc.... but that is not necessary in this parliamentary makeup.

[Robby nz]

Pheu Thai lodges petition with Court to dissolve Democrat party

Could that be a reason why Surtep doesn't trust PT ?

[Yunla]

Most prime ministers do not field questions etc., and even when they do it is usually just limited to Question Period (a few hours a week). Even when questions are directed at the Prime Minister the Minister in charge of that department will often stand to respond. 5% sounds low, but I would not expect it to be high since in a Parliamentary system they are filling many hats - one is in parliament, international travel, talking with foreign diplomats, etc. Rarely does a Prime Minister spend the majority of their time in parliament. They will show up for close votes, etc.... but that is not necessary in this parliamentary makeup.

Yes you are totally right, same as the other posters who said "thats not how it works in other countries", PM is often restricted to PM Question time special-event, etc. but this is not a monolith on a hilltop somewhere that was left for us by ancient gods, it is just how they do stuff currently. A more literal appreciation of Democracy is really for all elected members and the PM too, to actually engage in Debate as a full time job, interspersed with the obvious other duties of office. It is because policy-making requires a lot of talking, ironing out of issues, and so forth. Obviously delegation works too, but really the best situation would be a PM and all other MP's to be very active in Debate, and not just once a week at PMQ's. Athenian Greece where we got "Democracy" from, the Debates went on for absolutely ages, the difference there was that any born citizen could attend which obviously is not practical with 7 billion people in the world now. Long story short, I think Yingluck (and most politicians globally) do not Debate enough, or engage in open forum Q&A, they are not put on the spot in Parliament or in public spheres either. And I feel that is the root of many of the worlds problems. Light needs shining into the dark corners that these people are so careful to keep dark, and it can only happen if they are forced to answer questions. Reading scripts from autoprompts is basically the opposite of Democracy. The problem in Thailand is they do not have many open channels of Debate, Parliament is very badly attended and the issues being debated are things like Thaksin's passport which is entirely meaningless policy matter in a developing nation with pressing infrastructure problems. Replacing this badly maintained Parliamentary systemy with Suthep's FB List autocracy system will mean even LESS channels of Debate, Q&A, a huge step backwards Democratically and will be very bad for Thailand imho.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Yunla

[cacruden]

Pheu Thai lodges petition with Court to dissolve Democrat party

Could that be a reason why Surtep doesn't trust PT ?

You mean after a similar process was started to disqualify dissolve the PTP? What is good for the goose is good for the gander, but the courts are all made up of gooses.

[smutcakes]

As I read your post, you are saying that MPs in Thailand are less experienced with the mechanics of democracy than those in Europe and other countries that use a Parliamentary system? Most political parties with which I am familiar have a party platform and those MPs in the party are supposed to have the discipline to adhere to the provisions of the platform. The party platform is the 'agenda'. If a party is fortunate enough to enjoy a majority, I am at a complete loss to understand how using their political power to pass the measures in their platform is an abuse of power. As far as I know all democratic bodies in the world have rules. Most of the rules allow the 'minority' party to only delay the agenda of the majority not to block it. And I think it is safe to say that all legislative bodies have a rule that allow the body to vote to limit or end debate. Under 'Robert's Rules of Order' - the standard relied on by most legislative bodies, a motion to limit debate takes precedence over all other pending motions. Once debate is stopped, then a vote on the pending motion is in order. I am a loss to understand the rules to which you refer give the minority a right to prevent the majority from ultimately enforcing their will on the minority no matter how spirited the debate or the 'logic' applied. IF, I was a member of a political party, I would be philosophically aligned with the principles of that party. If didn't align myself with the purpose, party platform, etc., there would be much reason for the existence of political parties at all. And I would note, the MPs in Europe follow the 'party line' much more strictly than other places of which I am aware.

Yingluck, who should be leading by example, as she is PM (lol), had a Parliament attendance rate of 5%~ at some point. I forget the exact figure. But that would be a good starting point for Parliamentary reform. We can move on to House Speakers taking orders from overseas criminals, and not being sacked for it, policy gridlock without a rational queueing system for priority policies, etc. The current system here fails hard, and there is a long list of things they can implement in Parliament to make it work.

Again you respond to my posts without really reading them. I already said stop comparing my analysis of Parliamentary Democracy to other places round the world, as I have already said in this thread I criticise those other nations too for not fulfilling a more perfect Parliamentary system. There is an ideal, and I am saying how Thailand can head in the right direction to approach that ideal.

Yunla, is this actually true, i thought i read somewhere that her overall attendance was at a fairly similar level to predecessors- whether she was there for important bits is obviously an issue, but i am sure on count back so to speak she spent around equal to previous PM's.

[Yunla]

Yunla, is this actually true, i thought i read somewhere that her overall attendance was at a fairly similar level to predecessors- whether she was there for important bits is obviously an issue, but i am sure on count back so to speak she spent around equal to previous PM's.

Its true but I hold those same previous 5% attendance PM's to the same candle really, they fail too (in my book) and the critical point is that these weak numbers are during periods of great turbulence when a strong leader was needed, shirt-sleeves rolled up, getting down to business. Thailand really needs a trench-leader, somebody who is ready to get his boots dirty in the arena of spirited discourse. As the saying goes; "if not now, then when?" We need a hero, today. lol.

Obviously State-Trips, trips around the nation, etc.etc. many other things need to be done by a PM. But if you add it all up, and factor in that they are a central piece of the keystone thats holding the system upright, I would expect more than 5% attendance. This problem was compounded in Yingluck's case because her 5% of time spent was spent on Thaksin cheerleader policies. But the problem is institutional - Yingluck, Suthep, none of these people should be allowed to play around with the state apparatus, it should be Debate-based decsionmaking in Parliament, watched over be regulators appointed by a "higher body."

Edited December 16, 2013 by Yunla

[Spare]

Yunla, is this actually true, i thought i read somewhere that her overall attendance was at a fairly similar level to predecessors- whether she was there for important bits is obviously an issue, but i am sure on count back so to speak she spent around equal to previous PM's.

Its true but I hold those same previous 5% attendance PM's to the same candle really, they fail too (in my book) and the critical point is that these weak numbers are during periods of great turbulence when a strong leader was needed, shirt-sleeves rolled up, getting down to business. Thailand really needs a trench-leader, somebody who is ready to get his boots dirty in the arena of spirited discourse. As the saying goes; "if not now, then when?" We need a hero, today. lol.

Obviously State-Trips, trips around the nation, etc.etc. many other things need to be done by a PM. But if you add it all up, and factor in that they are a central piece of the keystone thats holding the system upright, I would expect more than 5% attendance. This problem was compounded in Yingluck's case because her 5% of time spent was spent on Thaksin cheerleader policies. But the problem is institutional - Yingluck, Suthep, none of these people should be allowed to play around with the state apparatus, it should be Debate-based decsionmaking in Parliament, watched over be regulators appointed by a "higher body."

How many meeting does your CEO attend? About 5% of the time. The rest is up to the management team.

His time is best used in the golf course, chatting with client, peers, leader of the industry, head of government, diplomates, etc.

[pookiki]

Yunla, is this actually true, i thought i read somewhere that her overall attendance was at a fairly similar level to predecessors- whether she was there for important bits is obviously an issue, but i am sure on count back so to speak she spent around equal to previous PM's.

Its true but I hold those same previous 5% attendance PM's to the same candle really, they fail too (in my book) and the critical point is that these weak numbers are during periods of great turbulence when a strong leader was needed, shirt-sleeves rolled up, getting down to business. Thailand really needs a trench-leader, somebody who is ready to get his boots dirty in the arena of spirited discourse. As the saying goes; "if not now, then when?" We need a hero, today. lol.

Obviously State-Trips, trips around the nation, etc.etc. many other things need to be done by a PM. But if you add it all up, and factor in that they are a central piece of the keystone thats holding the system upright, I would expect more than 5% attendance. This problem was compounded in Yingluck's case because her 5% of time spent was spent on Thaksin cheerleader policies. But the problem is institutional - Yingluck, Suthep, none of these people should be allowed to play around with the state apparatus, it should be Debate-based decsionmaking in Parliament, watched over be regulators appointed by a "higher body."

Ms. Yunla, I do read your posts and the last sentence of this post is intriguing as well as mysterious. No offense, but you seem to be consumed by the process of debate and the ability to shine light into dark places. Maybe an interrogation would do that but not necessarily a 'debate'. And, at some point, the debate needs to end and a decision needs to be made. You lament the manner in which priority issues are overlooked in favor of the trivial. But doesn't an extended debate on any issue with no final outcome trivialize everything? But your 'ideal' of 'regulators' appointed by a 'higher body' seems a bit fuzzy around the edges to me. Would you care to elaborate on the role of the 'regulators' and who exactly is the 'higher body' that does the appointing and how the 'higher body' was created/elected/appointed or to whom you refer?

[brit1984]

Yunla, is this actually true, i thought i read somewhere that her overall attendance was at a fairly similar level to predecessors- whether she was there for important bits is obviously an issue, but i am sure on count back so to speak she spent around equal to previous PM's.

Its true but I hold those same previous 5% attendance PM's to the same candle really, they fail too (in my book) and the critical point is that these weak numbers are during periods of great turbulence when a strong leader was needed, shirt-sleeves rolled up, getting down to business. Thailand really needs a trench-leader, somebody who is ready to get his boots dirty in the arena of spirited discourse. As the saying goes; "if not now, then when?" We need a hero, today. lol.

Obviously State-Trips, trips around the nation, etc.etc. many other things need to be done by a PM. But if you add it all up, and factor in that they are a central piece of the keystone thats holding the system upright, I would expect more than 5% attendance. This problem was compounded in Yingluck's case because her 5% of time spent was spent on Thaksin cheerleader policies. But the problem is institutional - Yingluck, Suthep, none of these people should be allowed to play around with the state apparatus, it should be Debate-based decsionmaking in Parliament, watched over be regulators appointed by a "higher body."

do you mean god?... or tinker bell?...

[pookiki]

Its true but I hold those same previous 5% attendance PM's to the same candle really, they fail too (in my book) and the critical point is that these weak numbers are during periods of great turbulence when a strong leader was needed, shirt-sleeves rolled up, getting down to business. Thailand really needs a trench-leader, somebody who is ready to get his boots dirty in the arena of spirited discourse. As the saying goes; "if not now, then when?" We need a hero, today. lol.

Obviously State-Trips, trips around the nation, etc.etc. many other things need to be done by a PM. But if you add it all up, and factor in that they are a central piece of the keystone thats holding the system upright, I would expect more than 5% attendance. This problem was compounded in Yingluck's case because her 5% of time spent was spent on Thaksin cheerleader policies. But the problem is institutional - Yingluck, Suthep, none of these people should be allowed to play around with the state apparatus, it should be Debate-based decsionmaking in Parliament, watched over be regulators appointed by a "higher body."

do you mean god?... or tinker bell?...

The phrase about Parliament being watched over by 'regulators' appointed by a 'higher body' actually reminded me of a Star Trek episode I saw in the 1960's but I didn't want to mention it for fear of showing my age. :-/ Beam me up Scotty, Kirk out.