The best fix for Thailand's democracy?

[does]

Thailand has a unique opportunity to re-invent democracy. The political class is discredited and the democratic system is deadlocked.

The problems are not unique to Thailand. It seems a crisis of democracy itself. Representative democracy should result in governments that reflect the will of the majority of the people. But in the past few decades, inequality has grown nearly everywhere.

Why not use direct, participatory democracy and let people rather than the political class set the agenda. Set up a government website to let people register their top-ten of concerns for the country (i.e. inequality, corruption, education, environment, etc.). Let anyone - unions, business associations, universities, religious organizations, NGOs - come up with a plan, complete with a budget and goals for the next five years, that addresses voter concerns. Let the voters decide on the best plan; let anyone apply for the jobs to head the various government departments and let voters elect the candidates.

And the most effective cure for abuse of political office: let all those elected to public office surrender their personal assets above a fixed amount - say 10 million baht - to the state. Let them agree to verifiably live on a government stipend during and after serving their term in office, and to donate all their extraneous income thereafter to state coffers. Violation punishable by exile to a tax haven of their choice. This would weed out the bad actors from politics in a hurry and it would restore the meaning of “civil” to the notion of civil servant.

Any thoughts on why this could not be implemented?

[chrisinth]

So with your scheme of things, it should be compulsory for K. Somporn, the democratically elected member for Nakon Nowhere, who happens to be the director of a major fabrication yard with large overseas contracts, to get rid of any finances over 10 million baht into the coffers?

Good luck selling that.................

By setting up a government website to choose the governments agenda, you are already making divides in the voting public. Not everybody has a computer, and the majority of those that have smart phones in the poorer working areas of Thailand wouldn't know what to do with it.

Or do their voices not count?

Edited March 5, 2014 by chrisinth

[Seastallion]

Your heart is in the right place in that you want to improve things, however you have not thought it through properly.

As for your idea about the safeguard from abuse of power; Why on earth would any rich person be so altruistic that they would give up their wealth for the sake of running the country, unless they could recoup their losses, and perhaps profit from them? Average human nature being what it is. If it is a poor person, where is the safeguard?

But the main thing is this popular ideal that "democracy" and "majority rule" are the be all and end all. If you really want a country to succeed, you need to consider what majority rule actually implies in reality.

The majority, by definition, are the average. Average intellect, average education, average morals etc. A country needs THE BEST to run it. The best minds, the best intentions, the best abilities etc. Furthermore, to get the best, we have to sift out the worst and the average. Major (and minor!) successful corporations and companies could not succeed if they were "democratic". CEO's and managers are chosen for their abilities.

Thus, in the first instance, govenors (think parliamentarians) need to qualify for the position. They need to show a history of honesty and integrity, intelligence, and ability. Parliament can operate as it traditionally/theoretically would, ie debate and discuss ideas to help the citizenry and the country.

In the second instance, the voters need to qualify in terms of intelligence. Say the 35th percentile, ie 65% of the population. The reason for this is that if we are to have some form of "democratic" system, we have to face reality and prohibit idiots from contributing to the results.

It's not "democracy" as we know it, it is not true democracy, but it is a practicable democracy that has the best chance of making the country as a whole succeed, along with it's citizens.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Seastallion

[speedtripler]

dont you mean thailands hierarchy ? poor people aint worth shit

and their goverment doesnt even have enough respect to pay them

[speedtripler]

Your heart is in the right place in that you want to improve things, however you have not thought it through properly.

As for your idea about the safeguard from abuse of power; Why on earth would any rich person be so altruistic that they would give up their wealth for the sake of running the country, unless they could recoup their losses, and perhaps profit from them? Average human nature being what it is. If it is a poor person, where is the safeguard?

But the main thing is this popular ideal that "democracy" and "majority rule" are the be all and end all. If you really want a country to succeed, you need to consider what majority rule actually implies in reality.

The majority, by definition, are the average. Average intellect, average education, average morals etc. A country needs THE BEST to run it. The best minds, the best intentions, the best abilities etc. Furthermore, to get the best, we have to sift out the worst and the average. Major (and minor!) successful corporations and companies could not succeed if they were "democratic". CEO's and managers are chosen for their abilities.

Thus, in the first instance, govenors (think parliamentarians) need to qualify for the position. They need to show a history of honesty and integrity, intelligence, and ability. Parliament can operate as it traditionally/theoretically would, ie debate and discuss ideas to help the citizenry and the country.

In the second instance, the voters need to qualify in terms of intelligence. Say the 35th percentile, ie 65% of the population. The reason for this is that if we are to have some form of "democratic" system, we have to face reality and prohibit idiots from contributing to the results.

It's not "democracy" as we know it, it is not true democracy, but it is a practicable democracy that has the best chance of making the country as a whole succeed, along with it's citizens.

Exclude 35% because theyre too stupid too vote and see what happens ......

sorry sir ,your just too much of a buffalo to be counted in this election ........

[wym]

The last place humanity could ever successfully experiment on "improving" democracy would be Thailand.

[does]

I realize Mr Somporn may not easily be persuaded to give up his fortune. But that's the point: you get either private wealth of public office - not both.

About access to computers - install terminals at post offices or city halls. Any voter can make a top-ten list of concerns he/she has for the country and enter them in a template of a website. Let a government worker assist these who have problems with using the website.

But the larger point is voter awareness. Ask a few people in your immediate surrounding to tell you their top-ten issues facing Thailand and they will likely be taken aback. They are used to the political class to tell them what ails the country. And they typically vote for their wallet. Asking people to list their top-ten concerns for the country (rather than their own personal interest/concerns) should give you a better reading of where the country should go.

So with your scheme of things, it should be compulsory for K. Somporn, the democratically elected member for Nakon Nowhere, who happens to be the director of a major fabrication yard with large overseas contracts, to get rid of any finances over 10 million baht into the coffers?

Good luck selling that.................

By setting up a government website to choose the governments agenda, you are already making divides in the voting public. Not everybody has a computer, and the majority of those that have smart phones in the poorer working areas of Thailand wouldn't know what to do with it.

Or do their voices not count?

[does]

See my reply to Chrisinth. If you feel the country needs the BEST to run it, than you are arguing for a technocracy. I feel that is an elitist approach - but arguably better than a kleptocracy ;-)

Your heart is in the right place in that you want to improve things, however you have not thought it through properly.

As for your idea about the safeguard from abuse of power; Why on earth would any rich person be so altruistic that they would give up their wealth for the sake of running the country, unless they could recoup their losses, and perhaps profit from them? Average human nature being what it is. If it is a poor person, where is the safeguard?

But the main thing is this popular ideal that "democracy" and "majority rule" are the be all and end all. If you really want a country to succeed, you need to consider what majority rule actually implies in reality.

The majority, by definition, are the average. Average intellect, average education, average morals etc. A country needs THE BEST to run it. The best minds, the best intentions, the best abilities etc. Furthermore, to get the best, we have to sift out the worst and the average. Major (and minor!) successful corporations and companies could not succeed if they were "democratic". CEO's and managers are chosen for their abilities.

Thus, in the first instance, govenors (think parliamentarians) need to qualify for the position. They need to show a history of honesty and integrity, intelligence, and ability. Parliament can operate as it traditionally/theoretically would, ie debate and discuss ideas to help the citizenry and the country.

In the second instance, the voters need to qualify in terms of intelligence. Say the 35th percentile, ie 65% of the population. The reason for this is that if we are to have some form of "democratic" system, we have to face reality and prohibit idiots from contributing to the results.

It's not "democracy" as we know it, it is not true democracy, but it is a practicable democracy that has the best chance of making the country as a whole succeed, along with it's citizens.

[Seastallion]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The last place humanity could ever successfully experiment on "improving" democracy would be Thailand.

I recognise and appreciate your cynicism, but I'm not sure that you're right. The major obstacle would be displacing "the elite", but that's not implausable.

[Banzai99]

I reckon they should import farangs to run Thailand, I mean, look at the roaring success of our home countries, wonderful places to live, safe to walk the streets, no corruption, no Banking scandals, no........................................

Hang on a minute.........

Let's leave it up to the Thai's, that can't do any worse.

[chrisinth]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Quote

I realize Mr Somporn may not easily be persuaded to give up his fortune. But that's the point: you get either private wealth of public office - not both.

About access to computers - install terminals at post offices or city halls. Any voter can make a top-ten list of concerns he/she has for the country and enter them in a template of a website. Let a government worker assist these who have problems with using the website.

But the larger point is voter awareness. Ask a few people in your immediate surrounding to tell you their top-ten issues facing Thailand and they will likely be taken aback. They are used to the political class to tell them what ails the country. And they typically vote for their wallet. Asking people to list their top-ten concerns for the country (rather than their own personal interest/concerns) should give you a better reading of where the country should go.

Quote

So with your scheme of things, it should be compulsory for K. Somporn, the democratically elected member for Nakon Nowhere, who happens to be the director of a major fabrication yard with large overseas contracts, to get rid of any finances over 10 million baht into the coffers?

Good luck selling that................. width=20 alt=rolleyes.gif>

By setting up a government website to choose the governments agenda, you are already making divides in the voting public. Not everybody has a computer, and the majority of those that have smart phones in the poorer working areas of Thailand wouldn't know what to do with it.

Or do their voices not count?

As a matter of interest, which country are you basing your democratic reform/adjustment on?

Perhaps I am being bias as I have never voted in my life. That is not to say that my vote was never used, it was used by proxy while I was away doing things. I could never follow how the politicians, the democratically elected politicians, interpreted the wishes of their constituents into the decisions that were made. Very easy for me to lose interest in political lies to the extent of not caring as the overall outcome doesn't depend on what party is at the helm.

[Seastallion]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

See my reply to Chrisinth. If you feel the country needs the BEST to run it, than you are arguing for a technocracy. I feel that is an elitist approach - but arguably better than a kleptocracy ;-)

Your heart is in the right place in that you want to improve things, however you have not thought it through properly.

As for your idea about the safeguard from abuse of power; Why on earth would any rich person be so altruistic that they would give up their wealth for the sake of running the country, unless they could recoup their losses, and perhaps profit from them? Average human nature being what it is. If it is a poor person, where is the safeguard?

But the main thing is this popular ideal that "democracy" and "majority rule" are the be all and end all. If you really want a country to succeed, you need to consider what majority rule actually implies in reality.

The majority, by definition, are the average. Average intellect, average education, average morals etc. A country needs THE BEST to run it. The best minds, the best intentions, the best abilities etc. Furthermore, to get the best, we have to sift out the worst and the average. Major (and minor!) successful corporations and companies could not succeed if they were "democratic". CEO's and managers are chosen for their abilities.

Thus, in the first instance, govenors (think parliamentarians) need to qualify for the position. They need to show a history of honesty and integrity, intelligence, and ability. Parliament can operate as it traditionally/theoretically would, ie debate and discuss ideas to help the citizenry and the country.

In the second instance, the voters need to qualify in terms of intelligence. Say the 35th percentile, ie 65% of the population. The reason for this is that if we are to have some form of "democratic" system, we have to face reality and prohibit idiots from contributing to the results.

It's not "democracy" as we know it, it is not true democracy, but it is a practicable democracy that has the best chance of making the country as a whole succeed, along with it's citizens.

A new technocracy. Technocracy ideals failed in history for various reasons, but none of them were because technocracy was essentially flawed. It was a social and political thing. The difference with this "new" technocracy is that the voters need to qualify also (to a lower standard to that of the "govenors"). Also, this new technocracy takes into account a person's integrity. What is wrong with elitist if it works for everyone? In fact, the term "elitist" detracts from what is actually happening, ie a bunch of smart, good-hearted "elite" doing the best they can for one and all.

[max72]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The last place humanity could ever successfully experiment on "improving" democracy would be Thailand.

I recognise and appreciate your cynicism, but I'm not sure that you're right. The major obstacle would be displacing "the elite", but that's not implausable.

I agree . The elite has a feudal design in his mind and Thai army has NEVER ever done anything for the people, only for their businesses and the elite's businesses. The best thing Thailand could do is to abolish the army and that's it. Than, taking young university graduates in law to replace the rotten , biased and corrupted judicial system.

The first government of new Thailand should be composed by people under 40, young talented technicians without any minimal political background and affiliation.

Yes, there is nothing better than a democracy, but as first elections of the new Thailand I would propose a non partisan election of independent candidates, young guys with spectacles and pimples with great grades in the Universisty diplomas with talent and ideas.

That would really be a clean "shutdown" not that junk proposed by that scum of Suthep who represents the worst of Thailand.

Of course I am dreaming....few years ago Prem and Anunpong said that 150 000 dead is a price worthwhile in order to preserve the system, so at the present we know the elite will never allow a true democracy in Thailand.

[max72]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The last place humanity could ever successfully experiment on "improving" democracy would be Thailand.

I recognise and appreciate your cynicism, but I'm not sure that you're right. The major obstacle would be displacing "the elite", but that's not implausable.

I agree . The elite has a feudal design in his mind and Thai army has NEVER ever done anything for the people, only for their businesses and the elite's businesses. The best thing Thailand could do is to abolish the army and that's it. Than, taking young university graduates in law to replace the rotten , biased and corrupted judicial system.

The first government of new Thailand should be composed by people under 40, young talented technicians without any minimal political background and affiliation.

Yes, there is nothing better than a democracy, but as first elections of the new Thailand I would propose a non partisan election-to heal the current terrible divisions- of independent candidates, young guys with spectacles and pimples with great grades in the Universisty diplomas with talent and ideas.

That would really be a clean "shutdown" not that junk proposed by that scum of Suthep who represents the worst of Thailand.

Of course I am dreaming....few years ago Prem and Anunpong said that 150 000 dead is a price worthwhile in order to preserve the system, so at the present we know the elite will never allow a true democracy in Thailand.

Edited March 5, 2014 by max72

[wym]

The last place humanity could ever successfully experiment on "improving" democracy would be Thailand.

I recognise and appreciate your cynicism, but I'm not sure that you're right. The major obstacle would be displacing "the elite", but that's not implausable.

"Displacing"? More like ethnic cleansing, blood in the streets. Unfortunately given power structures here, it's not going to be their blood if "the people" try anything on. . .

A new technocracy. Technocracy ideals failed in history for various reasons, but none of them were because technocracy was essentially flawed. It was a social and political thing. The difference with this "new" technocracy is that the voters need to qualify also (to a lower standard to that of the "govenors"). Also, this new technocracy takes into account a person's integrity. What is wrong with elitist if it works for everyone? In fact, the term "elitist" detracts from what is actually happening, ie a bunch of smart, good-hearted "elite" doing the best they can for one and all.

There are plenty of smart good-hearted people, but they tend to avoid positions of power, and I'm afraid they're well outnumbered by smart selfish ones who don't.

[does]

I am not basing my ideas on any existing democracy, but arguing for a radical new approach to representative democracy, one in which people think about the country first, and where politicians are prevented from corrupting the political process to enrich themselves and/or their backers. Elected officials/civil servants should not be allowed to have a financial stake in policy making. The fact that they do must be the most important reason that the inequality index (Gini) has grown in nearly all democracies in the past 25 years.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Quote

I realize Mr Somporn may not easily be persuaded to give up his fortune. But that's the point: you get either private wealth of public office - not both.

About access to computers - install terminals at post offices or city halls. Any voter can make a top-ten list of concerns he/she has for the country and enter them in a template of a website. Let a government worker assist these who have problems with using the website.

But the larger point is voter awareness. Ask a few people in your immediate surrounding to tell you their top-ten issues facing Thailand and they will likely be taken aback. They are used to the political class to tell them what ails the country. And they typically vote for their wallet. Asking people to list their top-ten concerns for the country (rather than their own personal interest/concerns) should give you a better reading of where the country should go.

Quote

So with your scheme of things, it should be compulsory for K. Somporn, the democratically elected member for Nakon Nowhere, who happens to be the director of a major fabrication yard with large overseas contracts, to get rid of any finances over 10 million baht into the coffers?

Good luck selling that................. width=20 alt=rolleyes.gif>

By setting up a government website to choose the governments agenda, you are already making divides in the voting public. Not everybody has a computer, and the majority of those that have smart phones in the poorer working areas of Thailand wouldn't know what to do with it.

Or do their voices not count?

As a matter of interest, which country are you basing your democratic reform/adjustment on?

Perhaps I am being bias as I have never voted in my life. That is not to say that my vote was never used, it was used by proxy while I was away doing things. I could never follow how the politicians, the democratically elected politicians, interpreted the wishes of their constituents into the decisions that were made. Very easy for me to lose interest in political lies to the extent of not caring as the overall outcome doesn't depend on what party is at the helm.

[DrTuner]

Do what hasn't been done anywhere in the world, because the political cronies are fighting with bare teeth to keep their positions: direct democracy. No MPs, no senate, nothing except places to vote and put things on voting lists. 2 month time to vote on each issue, at least 25% of voters must vote and 75% majority to pass as a law.

Naturally, there wouldn't be many laws, only the essentials. Oh the bliss.

[razer]

A benevolent dictator who loves his country, who wants to eradicate corruption at all levels by draconian means, and who wants to build a 21st century infrastructure for all of Thailand.

[Mudcrab]

A benevolent dictator who loves his country, who wants to eradicate corruption at all levels by draconian means, and who wants to build a 21st century infrastructure for all of Thailand.

Now who could that be........hmmmmmm?

[personchester]

I reckon they should import farangs to run Thailand, I mean, look at the roaring success of our home countries, wonderful places to live, safe to walk the streets, no corruption, no Banking scandals, no........................................

Hang on a minute.........

Let's leave it up to the Thai's, that can't do any worse.

It is up to the Thais to sort their political problems because Thailand is their country and not a farang country, you are also wrong in stating that our home countries had no Banking scandals, it is the other way round, Thailand has had no banking scandals, but the banks in our home countries have had and still have heavy financial problems.

It started in 2008 and the Banks in the US, UK, and entirely within the European Union had major financial problems and had to be totally supported by their government's, the US and UK printed Billions of their currency to save the banks, the European countries did not print new money but the ECB and the IMF provided Billions to save their banks.

Edited March 5, 2014 by personchester

[wym]

A benevolent dictator who loves his country, who wants to eradicate corruption at all levels by draconian means, and who wants to build a 21st century infrastructure for all of Thailand.

with unlimited power and full support not only among both the police and armed forces but the general population unified behind his efforts

Edited March 5, 2014 by wym

[Banzai99]

A benevolent dictator who loves his country, who wants to eradicate corruption at all levels by draconian means, and who wants to build a 21st century infrastructure for all of Thailand.

with unlimited power and full support not only among both the police and armed forces but the general population unified behind his efforts

Plus the support of nearly every Farang if he made some new laws that benefit farangs.

Farangs get a 25 year visa after a 5 year plus stay, or marriage to a Thai woman gives you easy steps to apply for Thai citizenshisp.

We'd have more Thai citizens here than Farangs . !

They wouldn't give a toss about his political past.

Their bitterness comes beacause, he is a Billionaire, and it ends there.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Banzai99

[does]

Technocratic can be seen as elitist in that suggests that highly qualified/educated people should lead the rest. Singapore comes to mind. Ethical technocratics are preferable over corrupt business leaders, but that political leaders should be ethical goes without saying.

Representative democracy in its current form is broken, not only in Thailand but in the US and elsewhere. What better way to fix it than by asking voters their input on what ails the country and using a 5-year plan to solve the problems identified by voters.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

See my reply to Chrisinth. If you feel the country needs the BEST to run it, than you are arguing for a technocracy. I feel that is an elitist approach - but arguably better than a kleptocracy ;-)

Your heart is in the right place in that you want to improve things, however you have not thought it through properly.

As for your idea about the safeguard from abuse of power; Why on earth would any rich person be so altruistic that they would give up their wealth for the sake of running the country, unless they could recoup their losses, and perhaps profit from them? Average human nature being what it is. If it is a poor person, where is the safeguard?

But the main thing is this popular ideal that "democracy" and "majority rule" are the be all and end all. If you really want a country to succeed, you need to consider what majority rule actually implies in reality.

The majority, by definition, are the average. Average intellect, average education, average morals etc. A country needs THE BEST to run it. The best minds, the best intentions, the best abilities etc. Furthermore, to get the best, we have to sift out the worst and the average. Major (and minor!) successful corporations and companies could not succeed if they were "democratic". CEO's and managers are chosen for their abilities.

Thus, in the first instance, govenors (think parliamentarians) need to qualify for the position. They need to show a history of honesty and integrity, intelligence, and ability. Parliament can operate as it traditionally/theoretically would, ie debate and discuss ideas to help the citizenry and the country.

In the second instance, the voters need to qualify in terms of intelligence. Say the 35th percentile, ie 65% of the population. The reason for this is that if we are to have some form of "democratic" system, we have to face reality and prohibit idiots from contributing to the results.

It's not "democracy" as we know it, it is not true democracy, but it is a practicable democracy that has the best chance of making the country as a whole succeed, along with it's citizens.

A new technocracy. Technocracy ideals failed in history for various reasons, but none of them were because technocracy was essentially flawed. It was a social and political thing. The difference with this "new" technocracy is that the voters need to qualify also (to a lower standard to that of the "govenors"). Also, this new technocracy takes into account a person's integrity. What is wrong with elitist if it works for everyone? In fact, the term "elitist" detracts from what is actually happening, ie a bunch of smart, good-hearted "elite" doing the best they can for one and all.

[wym]

I don't think many in power care much about ordinary people.

"National interest" = what's best for business.

The concept of nations, and government itself is becoming less and less relevant, the large corporations and their owners is where the real power lies more than ever.

[ggt]

Your heart is in the right place in that you want to improve things, however you have not thought it through properly.

As for your idea about the safeguard from abuse of power; Why on earth would any rich person be so altruistic that they would give up their wealth for the sake of running the country, unless they could recoup their losses, and perhaps profit from them? Average human nature being what it is. If it is a poor person, where is the safeguard?

But the main thing is this popular ideal that "democracy" and "majority rule" are the be all and end all. If you really want a country to succeed, you need to consider what majority rule actually implies in reality.

The majority, by definition, are the average. Average intellect, average education, average morals etc. A country needs THE BEST to run it. The best minds, the best intentions, the best abilities etc. Furthermore, to get the best, we have to sift out the worst and the average. Major (and minor!) successful corporations and companies could not succeed if they were "democratic". CEO's and managers are chosen for their abilities.

Thus, in the first instance, govenors (think parliamentarians) need to qualify for the position. They need to show a history of honesty and integrity, intelligence, and ability. Parliament can operate as it traditionally/theoretically would, ie debate and discuss ideas to help the citizenry and the country.

In the second instance, the voters need to qualify in terms of intelligence. Say the 35th percentile, ie 65% of the population. The reason for this is that if we are to have some form of "democratic" system, we have to face reality and prohibit idiots from contributing to the results.

It's not "democracy" as we know it, it is not true democracy, but it is a practicable democracy that has the best chance of making the country as a whole succeed, along with it's citizens.

The US...one of the world's foremost democracies...has yet to figure out...how to keep idiots from contributing to the results...case in point,,,look at today's gov't...

[nithisa78]

So with your scheme of things, it should be compulsory for K. Somporn, the democratically elected member for Nakon Nowhere, who happens to be the director of a major fabrication yard with large overseas contracts, to get rid of any finances over 10 million baht into the coffers?

Good luck selling that.................

By setting up a government website to choose the governments agenda, you are already making divides in the voting public. Not everybody has a computer, and the majority of those that have smart phones in the poorer working areas of Thailand wouldn't know what to do with it.

Or do their voices not count?

I think the poster, good natured and just stating point to start. Whatever the formula, it will take work and more than little self-education on the part of the constituency. Thailand, like many Countries, great place . . . . . growing pains.

[sustento]

The OP ought to do a little research on sakdina before he proposes his 'new democracy'.

[Banzai99]

Yeah, like you lot came here or stay here, for the Political climate......................

Any sign of a poor white boy getting hurt, the Airlines out of Thailand would be fully booked running 24/7.

No wonder the poor remain poor, you lot just look after yourselves, " I don't want no trouble mister, I'll come back when the exploitation can recommence, I'm sure there will be plenty of poor Asian girls left for me to exploit "

Carry on !

Edited March 5, 2014 by Banzai99

[wym]

The OP ought to do a little research on sakdina before he proposes his 'new democracy'.

Probably THE most forbidden topic here, shouldn't even be mentioned in this context.

[Sirbergan]

So with your scheme of things, it should be compulsory for K. Somporn, the democratically elected member for Nakon Nowhere, who happens to be the director of a major fabrication yard with large overseas contracts, to get rid of any finances over 10 million baht into the coffers?

Good luck selling that.................

By setting up a government website to choose the governments agenda, you are already making divides in the voting public. Not everybody has a computer, and the majority of those that have smart phones in the poorer working areas of Thailand wouldn't know what to do with it.

Or do their voices not count?

No, of course they don't count. Only good people representing the minority of Good People counts. Good people are defined as "One who's got an iPhone5, without ever performing an action considered (by good people) to be morally depraved in order to get one". What Thailand needs as this point, is a council of such Good People. People who, like their current leader, have no history whatsoever of performing corrupt actions. Saints, if you'd like. The promising future of this wonderful country lies in the land of many saints.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Sirbergan