Prayuth declines to commit himself that he will not stage coup

[rixalex]

So it works in the US but wont work in Thailand because....? Thai voters are too dumb?

Nothing to do with the voters. To do with the wide scale level of corruption and nepotism that would in practice mean, a senate full of aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, cousins, former class mates and friends, of those in power.

I've never stated that changing the senate to a fully elected body would result in a loss of independence for the judiciary - I believe exactly the opposite is true - a fully elected senate will lead to a more independent, less corruptible judiciary.

You stated "if the PTP have greater control over judicial appointments it is because a majority of the citizens want it that way and if the PTP make bad or corrupt decisions the people will take away the power they gave at the next election".

You are accepting therefore that PTP would have greater control over judicial appointments (judicial appointments that are supposed to be keeping them and other politicians in check) and you are accepting that PTP may get away with making bad or corrupt decisions. None of that sounds like a move forward for independence or for anyone accept PTP. As for the voters, they only get to vote once every four years, at least that is the idea, and furthermore, your suggestion that the fear of being voted out will by itself police politicians into not making bad and corrupt decisions is totally flawed and is proven to be totally flawed pretty much every day in Thailand by the actions of politicians.

The biggest problem facing Thailand is that the Democrats are so woeful and inept that it can't win enough votes to be a strong parliamentary force against the PTP. Instead of trying to change the system to allow the minority to exert control over institutions without a popular mandate the PDRC rabble should focus their efforts on developing policies and finding suitable candidates that will allow them to actually win some votes. But that seems like too much hard work when you can just head to the streets with tanks or 6 wheelchair grannies and steal power.

That is one of the problems but the other one is PTPs inability to run the country with the best interests of the country. What all started this current mess wasn't the PTP being in power, as they had been in power for a couple of years without significant unrest and without great resistance. For the most part they were begrudgingly allowed to get on with running the country, just with the unspoken proviso from above of "ok, but please don't take the piss". The eleventh hour changes to the ridiculously described reconciliation bill, so as to include Thaksin in the amnesty, along with Abhisit and Suthep who were thrown in, in a pathetic attempt to appease the other side, was taking the piss. Why did they have to do it? They surely knew the chaos it would create. Or perhaps they didn't. Perhaps they seriously thought that with the nicely timed murder charges on the table, thanks to their good friend Tarit, they would have the leverage they needed to push the farce through. Either way, it is such a shame. They just can't help themselves it seems, because they consistently keep doing it.

[ManofReason]

So it works in the US but wont work in Thailand because....? Thai voters are too dumb?

Nothing to do with the voters. To do with the wide scale level of corruption and nepotism that would in practice mean, a senate full of aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, cousins, former class mates and friends, of those in power.

I've never stated that changing the senate to a fully elected body would result in a loss of independence for the judiciary - I believe exactly the opposite is true - a fully elected senate will lead to a more independent, less corruptible judiciary.

You stated "if the PTP have greater control over judicial appointments it is because a majority of the citizens want it that way and if the PTP make bad or corrupt decisions the people will take away the power they gave at the next election".

You are accepting therefore that PTP would have greater control over judicial appointments (judicial appointments that are supposed to be keeping them and other politicians in check) and you are accepting that PTP may get away with making bad or corrupt decisions. None of that sounds like a move forward for independence or for anyone accept PTP. As for the voters, they only get to vote once every four years, at least that is the idea, and furthermore, your suggestion that the fear of being voted out will by itself police politicians into not making bad and corrupt decisions is totally flawed and is proven to be totally flawed pretty much every day in Thailand by the actions of politicians.

The biggest problem facing Thailand is that the Democrats are so woeful and inept that it can't win enough votes to be a strong parliamentary force against the PTP. Instead of trying to change the system to allow the minority to exert control over institutions without a popular mandate the PDRC rabble should focus their efforts on developing policies and finding suitable candidates that will allow them to actually win some votes. But that seems like too much hard work when you can just head to the streets with tanks or 6 wheelchair grannies and steal power.

That is one of the problems but the other one is PTPs inability to run the country with the best interests of the country. What all started this current mess wasn't the PTP being in power, as they had been in power for a couple of years without significant unrest and without great resistance. For the most part they were begrudgingly allowed to get on with running the country, just with the unspoken proviso from above of "ok, but please don't take the piss". The eleventh hour changes to the ridiculously described reconciliation bill, so as to include Thaksin in the amnesty, along with Abhisit and Suthep who were thrown in, in a pathetic attempt to appease the other side, was taking the piss. Why did they have to do it? They surely knew the chaos it would create. Or perhaps they didn't. Perhaps they seriously thought that with the nicely timed murder charges on the table, thanks to their good friend Tarit, they would have the leverage they needed to push the farce through. Either way, it is such a shame. They just can't help themselves it seems, because they consistently keep doing it.

1. A senate full of ELECTED aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters........

2. If not ELECTED politicians accountable to the people - tell me who do you think should control the senate? A council of "good people" selected by Suthep? And what checks and balances will they be answerable to? Democracy has often but described as not perfect but as the least worst form of government.

3. "An elected government was begrudgingly allowed to run the country". Who other than the electorate has the right to allow or disallow an elected government to do their job. This is the crux of the problem - there exists a minority that feels they own the joint and can decide who can and can't govern the country. They don't accept democracy and are desperately trying to cling to the old power structure by all means fair and (mainly) foul. One of those foul means is by trying to rig the system to remove independent agencies of government away from the control of the electorate (read people).

4. The campaign against Red governments has been continuous and ongoing since 2005. Look up Pitak Siam, another failed, dodgy anti democratic movement that existed between the PAD and the PDRC.

[rixalex]

1. A senate full of ELECTED aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters........

Elected by whom? Elected by the people who they are supposed to be keeping in check. No conflict of interest there then whatsoever. To repeat, elected might mean more accountable but it doesn't necessarily mean more independent. Potentially quite the reverse, at least in this instance.

So go ahead and argue that this reform would potentially help in terms of accountability, but don't try arguing it is the solution to the issue of independence. It isn't. It's rather more likely the solution to a one party state, something that clearly doesn't bother you because like most reds, you seem to believe that popularity at the polls awards the victors carte blanche to do as they please. A fine philosophy all the while you happen to support the victors.

[rixalex]

3. "An elected government was begrudgingly allowed to run the country". Who other than the electorate has the right to allow or disallow an elected government to do their job.

The judiciary for one. Same as with all properly functioning democracies around the world. Every single citizen in a country might happen to favor say for example a pedophile becoming their leader but if the constitution prevents such an appointment, laws and rules aren't simply put to one side because that is what the electorate wishes. This is the problem with the reds and with all of Thaksin's parties: a belief that popularity and poll success out trumps the rule of law. It's that mentality that keeps tripping them up.

[ManofReason]

1. A senate full of ELECTED aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters........

Elected by whom? Elected by the people who they are supposed to be keeping in check. No conflict of interest there then whatsoever. To repeat, elected might mean more accountable but it doesn't necessarily mean more independent. Potentially quite the reverse, at least in this instance.

So go ahead and argue that this reform would potentially help in terms of accountability, but don't try arguing it is the solution to the issue of independence. It isn't. It's rather more likely the solution to a one party state, something that clearly doesn't bother you because like most reds, you seem to believe that popularity at the polls awards the victors carte blanche to do as they please. A fine philosophy all the while you happen to support the victors.

All senators should be elected by the people as per the 97 constitution, not 1/2 elected as per the 07 constitution. It works the world over.

It is very clear that you don't believe democracy, you are in fact against it, so what do you believe in?

I see you didn't reply to the question before so I'll ask again, If senators aren't to be elected, how should they be chosen and by whom shall they be chosen by? Suthep? You? Me?

What magical system have you come up with the rest of the world is unaware of?

How are the "chosen" senators going to be held in check? Who do they answer to? Who can be a senator?

[wolf5370]

...and yet Thaksin met with the leaders of the Red Shirts during the 2010 debacle - and even agreed to their demands (which of course the Reds turned around later and broke by changing those very demands). Not on TV though of course.

Wasn't it then-PM Abhisit, not Thaksin, who met with the UDD-leaders in-2010 live on television, and agreed a deal which they then backed-out-of ?

Although Thaksin does seem to have met regularly with all sorts of loyal-followers, in Hong Kong & Cambodia & Dubai, over the years. Part of his face-gaining strategy, when they have to come to him, to ask for Cabinet-positions or other favours.

Yes typo - meant Abhisit - doh

[ManofReason]

3. "An elected government was begrudgingly allowed to run the country". Who other than the electorate has the right to allow or disallow an elected government to do their job.

The judiciary for one. Same as with all properly functioning democracies around the world. Every single citizen in a country might happen to favor say for example a pedophile becoming their leader but if the constitution prevents such an appointment, laws and rules aren't simply put to one side because that is what the electorate wishes. This is the problem with the reds and with all of Thaksin's parties: a belief that popularity and poll success out trumps the rule of law. It's that mentality that keeps tripping them up.

If every single citizen in a normal country was in favour of a pedophile being their leader - the constitution can be legally amended (usually by referendum) to reflect that desire and the Pedo can be put in charge.

From what I've seen going on over here it appears that the real problem is that unpopularity at polls trumps the law. It seems the losers of elections think they have more right to govern than the winners and disregard the law and try to snatch power at every opportunity.

The truth is this place is changing, majority rule is here to stay and the senate will eventually be returned to a fully elected body.

[jennywren]

A coup would be good now for the Red Shirts.

The army would have to expose its extreeme incompetence to the nation again and this would lead to protests that might just see off the Elites side once and for all.

I can see carnage every day in the South. Mr Prayuth sounds good, but he has no track record.... yet

[rixalex]

All senators should be elected by the people as per the 97 constitution, not 1/2 elected as per the 07 constitution. It works the world over.

It is very clear that you don't believe democracy, you are in fact against it, so what do you believe in?

I see you didn't reply to the question before so I'll ask again, If senators aren't to be elected, how should they be chosen and by whom shall they be chosen by? Suthep? You? Me?

What magical system have you come up with the rest of the world is unaware of?

How are the "chosen" senators going to be held in check? Who do they answer to? Who can be a senator?

I do believe in democracy thank you very much but the democracy i believe in, doesn't begin and end at the ballot box. If you believe in that, what you believe in is something that isn't actually democracy at all.

As for what the solution is regarding the senate, from the start of this discussion, it has been you, not me, claiming to have the magical system that will solve the issue of judicial independence. Although you have in subsequent posts gone on to contradict that claim but admitting that PTP would most likely end up controlling the judiciary and may well make bad and corrupt decisions with regards it, but in your book that's all ok because after four years of a government controlled judiciary, there would be elections and the electorate would no doubt be enraged by judicial injustice and vote them out. Or maybe they wouldn't, maybe the Thai electorate would vote for whoever offers the biggest handout (and no, not because the Thai electorate is stupid, but because a large percentage of the Thai electorate might not have the luxury of voting on ethics what with hungry mouths to feed and bills to pay) and another four years of non-independent, government controlled judiciary would follow.

I don't have the solution, but what i do know is, yours isn't a good one, at least not until there is the sort of accountability and transparency at parliamentary level that exists in a democracy like the one in the US, in which the senate is voted for, but doesn't end up simply as a tool of the government.

And finally, as has already been pointed out, in spite of your claims that the rest of the world is unaware of a system that doesn't involve voting for the senate, the system in the UK, the system on which Thai democracy was modeled, has managed without it for a very long time.

[rixalex]

If every single citizen in a normal country was in favour of a pedophile being their leader - the constitution can be legally amended (usually by referendum) to reflect that desire and the Pedo can be put in charge.

Great. And the Pedo leader can go on and legalize pedophilia, but that's all good, because it's in the name of democracy. Perhaps for the pedo's next great move, he can legalize ethnic cleansing. Where does it end? If something is popular, that makes it ok? Of course not. This is why democracy has and needs parameters, set out in the constitution, and those parameters have to be protected and preserved, otherwise democracy can become something very ugly and not in fact democracy at all.

It seems the losers of elections think they have more right to govern than the winners and disregard the law and try to snatch power at every opportunity.

After the coup, there were many who said that the military wouldn't allow a Thaksin backed party to win and take power. They did.

And after PTP's recent election success, many thought the blatant illegality of running with a leader both banned from politics and on the run from crime, would not be allowed. It was. Losers of the election do accept losing. That has been proven since 2001 with the amount of time Thaksin backed parties have been running the country. What they don't accept is Thaksin backed parties stepping over the mark with their self serving, corrupt and illegal ways.

[ikke]

Anyone with a bit of brain supports a coup!

It would be the only way to re-install a democracy , if done proper.

Coup done, military installment for 6 months, and democratic elections should be held .

Everybody happy, Not ? Suthep will never win, (he's to stupid) neither the red's, (to violent)... May the majority win !

But probably if the military stage a coup, they will install a friend government, and history will repeat......

[ManofReason]

All senators should be elected by the people as per the 97 constitution, not 1/2 elected as per the 07 constitution. It works the world over.

It is very clear that you don't believe democracy, you are in fact against it, so what do you believe in?

I see you didn't reply to the question before so I'll ask again, If senators aren't to be elected, how should they be chosen and by whom shall they be chosen by? Suthep? You? Me?

What magical system have you come up with the rest of the world is unaware of?

How are the "chosen" senators going to be held in check? Who do they answer to? Who can be a senator?

I do believe in democracy thank you very much but the democracy i believe in, doesn't begin and end at the ballot box. If you believe in that, what you believe in is something that isn't actually democracy at all.

As for what the solution is regarding the senate, from the start of this discussion, it has been you, not me, claiming to have the magical system that will solve the issue of judicial independence. Although you have in subsequent posts gone on to contradict that claim but admitting that PTP would most likely end up controlling the judiciary and may well make bad and corrupt decisions with regards it, but in your book that's all ok because after four years of a government controlled judiciary, there would be elections and the electorate would no doubt be enraged by judicial injustice and vote them out. Or maybe they wouldn't, maybe the Thai electorate would vote for whoever offers the biggest handout (and no, not because the Thai electorate is stupid, but because a large percentage of the Thai electorate might not have the luxury of voting on ethics what with hungry mouths to feed and bills to pay) and another four years of non-independent, government controlled judiciary would follow.

I don't have the solution, but what i do know is, yours isn't a good one, at least not until there is the sort of accountability and transparency at parliamentary level that exists in a democracy like the one in the US, in which the senate is voted for, but doesn't end up simply as a tool of the government.

And finally, as has already been pointed out, in spite of your claims that the rest of the world is unaware of a system that doesn't involve voting for the senate, the system in the UK, the system on which Thai democracy was modeled, has managed without it for a very long time.

So you are against the current system without knowing what you want to replace it with - how Suthep wishes the country was full of people like you.

Again you repeat that the Thai voters can't be trusted, not because they're stupid but because they're too hungry (first time I've ever heard this silliness). I am actually quite glad you said this though because it actually supports my position. Just think with a few more years of "populist" policies a great many of the poor will move into the middle classes where they'll then have enough money to not be too hungry to be able to vote without adult supervision. The fact is the system has been rigged against the poor for so long resulting in an enormous disparity between living standards within the country that Thailand and its elites are just going to have to accept the political pendulum swinging back a little excessively in the other direction for a while before it settles back somewhere towards the middle and Thailand finally becomes an open and free, first world country. Only once Thailand has reached this point will it be able to have success in reducing the excessive corruption. Note I said reducing as no nation on earth is corruption free. What the Yellow scum are doing, with their constant coups is retarding Thailands growth towards maturity - every time they kneecap democracy they are setting the country back a good 10 years, which is a shame because all they are doing is delaying the inevitable out of their own greed and heartlessness.

As for the UK - The "House of Lords" may technically be the Upper House of the UK parliament, but unlike most countries with Upper and Lower houses it has no voting powers and no powers to pass laws in any way and merely takes on an advisory role to the House of Commons. So, if you would like an unelected house that's fine - as long as they have no power.

[mic6ard]

Yingluck's quiet and restrained approach to dealing with Yellows has outsmarted them and won the ultimate victory for truth, justice and freedom.

In the fullness of time, good always triumphs over evil.

Outsmart, yeah right, we can see you've been paying attention. That's always the most important thing for these people, truth, justice and the dash to freedom. Of course one mans definition of truth and justice doesn't always match the next mans. Most of us recognise the dash to freedom though.

Around here, In the fullness of time all previously banned members return home to roost, it's almost amazing how they stand out.

Outsmarrting? Please try to find another word to describe her approach. They sent her up country (chiangmai - Chiang Rai), just so that she won't have a chance to open her mouth and show people how dumb she is.

[ManofReason]

Yingluck's quiet and restrained approach to dealing with Yellows has outsmarted them and won the ultimate victory for truth, justice and freedom.

In the fullness of time, good always triumphs over evil.

Outsmart, yeah right, we can see you've been paying attention. That's always the most important thing for these people, truth, justice and the dash to freedom. Of course one mans definition of truth and justice doesn't always match the next mans. Most of us recognise the dash to freedom though.

Around here, In the fullness of time all previously banned members return home to roost, it's almost amazing how they stand out.

Outsmarrting? Please try to find another word to describe her approach. They sent her up country (chiangmai - Chiang Rai), just so that she won't have a chance to open her mouth and show people how dumb she is.

The establishment have thrown everything they've got at her - this has been their "shock and awe" campaign and she has utterly routed them. Her performance very much reminds me of Muhammad Ali's historical "rope a dope" victory. So yes she has completely outsmarted, outwitted, outplanned and outthought the dopes on the other side. Proving that she is much, much, more than just a pretty face. Devastating victory.

[rixalex]

Again you repeat that the Thai voters can't be trusted, not because they're stupid but because they're too hungry (first time I've ever heard this silliness).

I didn't say I didn't trust them. What I said was that maybe if you are relatively poor, ethics might not be the deciding factor of what swings you to vote for one party over another... and so, your solution to the problem of the government controlling the judiciary and making it one sided against opposition, being that the people will vote them out if they do that, might not work at all. And then what?

But I get it. In your book, that's all well and good, because you can call it a non independent judiciary that is the will of the people, and that makes it all ok. Everything is ok by you if you can contrive it to have been by "the will of the people". Exactly the same argument we saw following the appalling war on drugs. Hundreds of innocent lives lost, but that's ok, "the people were happy with it".

[rixalex]

Just think with a few more years of "populist" policies a great many of the poor will move into the middle classes where they'll then have enough money to not be too hungry to be able to vote without adult supervision.

Just think indeed...

You are much more deluded than I feared.

[ManofReason]

Again you repeat that the Thai voters can't be trusted, not because they're stupid but because they're too hungry (first time I've ever heard this silliness).

I didn't say I didn't trust them. What I said was that maybe if you are relatively poor, ethics might not be the deciding factor of what swings you to vote for one party over another... and so, your solution to the problem of the government controlling the judiciary and making it one sided against opposition, being that the people will vote them out if they do that, might not work at all. And then what?

But I get it. In your book, that's all well and good, because you can call it a non independent judiciary that is the will of the people, and that makes it all ok. Everything is ok by you if you can contrive it to have been by "the will of the people". Exactly the same argument we saw following the appalling war on drugs. Hundreds of innocent lives lost, but that's ok, "the people were happy with it".

You seemed to have avoided responding to the majority of the content my last post - I wonder why that would be.

Try and spin it however you want - you support a system whereby (for whatever reason you wish to give) Thai voters cannot choose their own government. If that is the system you want then you should follow the British example of their upper house - unelected politicians are just advisers and are to hold no powers.

[ManofReason]

Just think with a few more years of "populist" policies a great many of the poor will move into the middle classes where they'll then have enough money to not be too hungry to be able to vote without adult supervision.

Just think indeed...

You are much more deluded than I feared.

No substance here - just name calling. I'll take that as a concession on your behalf and claim the win. Thank you.

[rixalex]

There is no argument, it is a statement of fact that cannot be denied by any rational means.

It can easily be denied. If the House of Lords was completely powerless, it wouldn't work as a check and a balance to the House of Commons. It demonstratively does.

[rixalex]

After all these posts you have still never mention how you think senators should be selected and how the system your advocating will eliminate political interference with independent institutions.

As already stated, I'm not the one here declaring I have the magical solution to an independent judiciary. You are, and I have explained umpteenth times now why your idea is flawed as a system for Thailand, and why the result wouldn't be a more independent judiciary, in fact most likely the reverse, to which your feeble response is, ah, but yes, it would be democratic, and so that would make it all alright.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[Thai at Heart]

There is no argument, it is a statement of fact that cannot be denied by any rational means.

It can easily be denied. If the House of Lords was completely powerless, it wouldn't work as a check and a balance to the House of Commons. It demonstratively does.

It performs a role, but it doesn't wrtite laws, and basically the country is forced to (in the words of our PRDC friends) suffer the tyranny of the majority. As long as the government in the lower house maintains its majority it is able to do whatever it wants in terms of passing laws for the entirety of its time in power. Part of the issue is that the Lords take their jobs quite seriously and regularly send bills back to prevent nonsense legislation and the MP's and committes actually do their job, unlike Thailand where being an MP is treated as a money making addendum to how you normally spend your days.

Laws are debated, cogitated, tweaked , worked on, written rewriten until you get a workeable piece of legislation.

As an example of the difference, i hold up the law stopping buying beer between 2 and 5 in Thailand. Not only is it completely unenforceable, it is possible to get around it, because obviously the booze wholesalers carry out their deliveries at that time of the day, so a stupid addendum was passed to allow purchase of a case. Rubber stamped by a sleeping and compliant Thai Senate.

This is precisely the role of the HOuse of Lords to firstly prevent NONSENSE laws which are unenforceable passing through. The fox hunting law was another potential classic screw up. Whether you agree or not, the first time it was tabled some quick whitted Lord noticed that it would have criminalised fishing and laid a member of the public open to prosecution if their pet killed a rabbit in the back garden. If you look at legislation in Thailand it is written so badly, that it is often unenforceable.

[ManofReason]

There is no argument, it is a statement of fact that cannot be denied by any rational means.

It can easily be denied. If the House of Lords was completely powerless, it wouldn't work as a check and a balance to the House of Commons. It demonstratively does.

It performs a role, but it doesn't wrtite laws, and basically the country is forced to (in the words of our PRDC friends) suffer the tyranny of the majority. As long as the government in the lower house maintains its majority it is able to do whatever it wants in terms of passing laws for the entirety of its time in power. Part of the issue is that the Lords take their jobs quite seriously and regularly send bills back to prevent nonsense legislation and the MP's and committes actually do their job, unlike Thailand where being an MP is treated as a money making addendum to how you normally spend your days.

Laws are debated, cogitated, tweaked , worked on, written rewriten until you get a workeable piece of legislation.

As an example of the difference, i hold up the law stopping buying beer between 2 and 5 in Thailand. Not only is it completely unenforceable, it is possible to get around it, because obviously the booze wholesalers carry out their deliveries at that time of the day, so a stupid addendum was passed to allow purchase of a case. Rubber stamped by a sleeping and compliant Thai Senate.

This is precisely the role of the HOuse of Lords to firstly prevent NONSENSE laws which are unenforceable passing through. The fox hunting law was another potential classic screw up. Whether you agree or not, the first time it was tabled some quick whitted Lord noticed that it would have criminalised fishing and laid a member of the public open to prosecution if their pet killed a rabbit in the back garden. If you look at legislation in Thailand it is written so badly, that it is often unenforceable.

My dear, dear Rixalex,

I don't think you quite understand this post.

If you did you probably wouldn't have "liked" it.

"The country is forced to (in the words of our PDRC friends) suffer the tyranny of the majority.

This is exactly what you have been arguing against. You don't want the Reds to be able hold this kind of power which is why you are against a fully elected senate.

yours,

a truly bewildered corespondent

[rixalex]

My dear, dear Rixalex,

I don't think you quite understand this post.

If you did you probably wouldn't have "liked" it.

"The country is forced to (in the words of our PDRC friends) suffer the tyranny of the majority.

This is exactly what you have been arguing against. You don't want the Reds to be able hold this kind of power which is why you are against a fully elected senate.

yours,

a truly bewildered corespondent

What works in one country doesn't necessarily work in another. In the UK, the upper house isn't elected and might not in reality have a lot of power, but it has enough sway to deter the government of the day from doing anything stupid. In short, the system works for the most part, pretty well, not least because jobs are taken seriously. Well some of them anyway...

As I say, I don't have the magical answer to what system would work in Thailand, or what would make for a more independent judiciary, I just don't believe the idea you support to be the solution you say that it is.

[ManofReason]

My dear, dear Rixalex,

I don't think you quite understand this post.

If you did you probably wouldn't have "liked" it.

"The country is forced to (in the words of our PDRC friends) suffer the tyranny of the majority.

This is exactly what you have been arguing against. You don't want the Reds to be able hold this kind of power which is why you are against a fully elected senate.

yours,

a truly bewildered corespondent

What works in one country doesn't necessarily work in another. In the UK, the upper house isn't elected and might not in reality have a lot of power, but it has enough sway to deter the government of the day from doing anything stupid. In short, the system works for the most part, pretty well, not least because jobs are taken seriously. Well some of them anyway...

As I say, I don't have the magical answer to what system would work in Thailand, or what would make for a more independent judiciary, I just don't believe the idea you support to be the solution you say that it is.

So lets all cross our fingers and hope that whatever systems Suthep decides to impose saves the day.

Insanity!

[rixalex]

So lets all cross our fingers and hope that whatever systems Suthep decides to impose saves the day.

Insanity!

Don't think you really need to waste your time crossing your fingers. Don't think Suthep will end up having much of a say in any of it.

[JamesDean3]

Give mo money...

[wolf5370]

All senators should be elected by the people as per the 97 constitution, not 1/2 elected as per the 07 constitution. It works the world over.

It is very clear that you don't believe democracy, you are in fact against it, so what do you believe in?

I see you didn't reply to the question before so I'll ask again, If senators aren't to be elected, how should they be chosen and by whom shall they be chosen by? Suthep? You? Me?

What magical system have you come up with the rest of the world is unaware of?

How are the "chosen" senators going to be held in check? Who do they answer to? Who can be a senator?

I do believe in democracy thank you very much but the democracy i believe in, doesn't begin and end at the ballot box. If you believe in that, what you believe in is something that isn't actually democracy at all.

As for what the solution is regarding the senate, from the start of this discussion, it has been you, not me, claiming to have the magical system that will solve the issue of judicial independence. Although you have in subsequent posts gone on to contradict that claim but admitting that PTP would most likely end up controlling the judiciary and may well make bad and corrupt decisions with regards it, but in your book that's all ok because after four years of a government controlled judiciary, there would be elections and the electorate would no doubt be enraged by judicial injustice and vote them out. Or maybe they wouldn't, maybe the Thai electorate would vote for whoever offers the biggest handout (and no, not because the Thai electorate is stupid, but because a large percentage of the Thai electorate might not have the luxury of voting on ethics what with hungry mouths to feed and bills to pay) and another four years of non-independent, government controlled judiciary would follow.

I don't have the solution, but what i do know is, yours isn't a good one, at least not until there is the sort of accountability and transparency at parliamentary level that exists in a democracy like the one in the US, in which the senate is voted for, but doesn't end up simply as a tool of the government.

And finally, as has already been pointed out, in spite of your claims that the rest of the world is unaware of a system that doesn't involve voting for the senate, the system in the UK, the system on which Thai democracy was modeled, has managed without it for a very long time.

So you are against the current system without knowing what you want to replace it with - how Suthep wishes the country was full of people like you.

Again you repeat that the Thai voters can't be trusted, not because they're stupid but because they're too hungry (first time I've ever heard this silliness). I am actually quite glad you said this though because it actually supports my position. Just think with a few more years of "populist" policies a great many of the poor will move into the middle classes where they'll then have enough money to not be too hungry to be able to vote without adult supervision. The fact is the system has been rigged against the poor for so long resulting in an enormous disparity between living standards within the country that Thailand and its elites are just going to have to accept the political pendulum swinging back a little excessively in the other direction for a while before it settles back somewhere towards the middle and Thailand finally becomes an open and free, first world country. Only once Thailand has reached this point will it be able to have success in reducing the excessive corruption. Note I said reducing as no nation on earth is corruption free. What the Yellow scum are doing, with their constant coups is retarding Thailands growth towards maturity - every time they kneecap democracy they are setting the country back a good 10 years, which is a shame because all they are doing is delaying the inevitable out of their own greed and heartlessness.

As for the UK - The "House of Lords" may technically be the Upper House of the UK parliament, but unlike most countries with Upper and Lower houses it has no voting powers and no powers to pass laws in any way and merely takes on an advisory role to the House of Commons. So, if you would like an unelected house that's fine - as long as they have no power.

No the House of Lords is required to sign off on every single law/Act - they have a veto (this does not remove the bill, but sends it make to the Commons - they can do this indefinitely in most cases, but not cases of bills that were voted on by the public, such as referendums and election manifesto promises - some bills they do have the full right to bin the bill, usually with regard to the Monarchy or the House itself) and they can make amendments. They are NOT and advisory to the Commons, nor were they ever such. They are called the Upper House, because they used to be the house that created the laws and governed the country, under the monarch (who was also a member of the House of Lords) and Commons was for the common people and their chance to raise issue (without veto) - that was changed a long time ago. No idea what you mean by "voting powers". Until recently, under the last Government, the HoL included the Wool-pack, the highest court of the land, but they were the legal advisors to the crown and to both houses - the leader of which was appointed (Lord Chief Justice) - that was changed and they were removed from the HoL (they never took part in the vote in the House anyway - they were a-political as a group) and formed the Supreme Court. They were the only advisory part of the HoL and no longer are. By the way, the HoL is complex in its make up: out of 763 sitting members (there are almost 50 non-sitting members that are barred from sitting for some reason or are ill, infirm or just do not sit): 92 are Peers and claim a seat by birth right (this used to be the majority of the house), 26 are Church of England Bishops (called the Lords Spiritual) and the rest are either Life Peers (made a Peer by the Monarch, QE II, on the advice of Government or House of Lords Appointment Committee).

I agree the system was rigged against the poor and always has been - but it still is too - and the present Government has made no attempt to change that fact either. Indeed, with propaganda, lies and false promises, and the rhetoric, with the enforcement of biased information and stopping other parties with opposing views even the ability to canvass in their strong hold areas, it is the very opposite of trying to get out of that particular rut. The Reds are not the answer to the poor - they are using the poor. The Yellows likewise are not the answer, as they just ignore the poor. There is no answer whilst corruption rules the roost and politicians and their families rape the country to the tune of trillions of baht every year - making themselves fortunes to the people's detriment.

An elected Senate (like an elected House of Lords) has a problem - the members are politically affiliated en-masse. This takes away the very point of having a second house - and makes it just a bigger first house. There are only two ways to lessen that effect: Appoint the members, a maximum percentage allowed per sitting government (so the house can not simply be replaced) from non-political positions (experts/academics/business/laymen/clerics/etc); or disallow affiliation between Senatorial political parties and Primary political parties (of course they may well be similar outlooks, but arms in both houses should never be allowed). In both cases, siblings and immediate family members should not be on the list of appointees - or on the Senatorial party lists - of sitting members of the primary house.

The latter was pretty much how the bill for Senatorial Reform was written, it was PTP that tacked on to allow siblings and family members of sitting members of parliament, it was the reason the bill was suddenly an anathema.

[wolf5370]

Again you repeat that the Thai voters can't be trusted, not because they're stupid but because they're too hungry (first time I've ever heard this silliness).

I didn't say I didn't trust them. What I said was that maybe if you are relatively poor, ethics might not be the deciding factor of what swings you to vote for one party over another... and so, your solution to the problem of the government controlling the judiciary and making it one sided against opposition, being that the people will vote them out if they do that, might not work at all. And then what?

But I get it. In your book, that's all well and good, because you can call it a non independent judiciary that is the will of the people, and that makes it all ok. Everything is ok by you if you can contrive it to have been by "the will of the people". Exactly the same argument we saw following the appalling war on drugs. Hundreds of innocent lives lost, but that's ok, "the people were happy with it".

You seemed to have avoided responding to the majority of the content my last post - I wonder why that would be.

Try and spin it however you want - you support a system whereby (for whatever reason you wish to give) Thai voters cannot choose their own government. If that is the system you want then you should follow the British example of their upper house - unelected politicians are just advisers and are to hold no powers.

Doesn't matter how many times you say it, it does not make it true. Why state things that are completely incorrect over and over, your lack of knowledge makes you look foolish and impresses no one but yourself and those equally unknowing. The HoL has much the same powers as Senate, with Representatives being similar to the Commons. Other than the fact that the Senate also does a lot of hiring and firing of judges and other federal positions, their roles are very similar - it is the Common that creates Bills just as it is Commons that does in the UK.

[wolf5370]

Just think with a few more years of "populist" policies a great many of the poor will move into the middle classes where they'll then have enough money to not be too hungry to be able to vote without adult supervision.

Just think indeed...

You are much more deluded than I feared.

No substance here - just name calling. I'll take that as a concession on your behalf and claim the win. Thank you.

I guess he was referring to the obvious - and hence shouldn't really require a comment further than "think". If the poor moves into the middle, who moves to the bottom? Making the poor middle class, then who becomes low class? Populist policies and super-ramping minimum wage does nothing to help the poor, just causes more inflation and more national debt. Wipe out the real middle classes, and there is no one left to pay the taxes (the poor certainly don't pay any and the wealthiest get around it - and being at the apex are too small a group to make much difference anyway) - and thus, no one to pay for those policies, up goes the debt, down comes the credit rating, because there is no way to pay.