Forum offers proposal for a directly elected Thai PM

[rubl]

I wonder who increase the party list mp from 100 to 125 a few years back? Mark?

You mean together with raising the total number of MP's to 500?

There may be 500 seats, but the only beneficiaries of abhisits changes to the organic laws on the election of MP's were meant to be the dems in the 2011 election, for two reasons

1. abhisit changed the multi seat constituencies to single seat constituencies to keep his coalition partners sweet, yet coincidentally the number of seats in the North and North East were reduced by 16 and only 2 in the south, for obvious reasons.

2. abhisit also increased the number of party list MP's (being one himself) from 80 to 125 as historically the dems gain more party list seats than constituency seats.

So having loaded the bases in preparation for the election, abhisit seems to have forgotten that also historically, the dems have a less than stellar reputaion for winning elections and old standbys like blaming unfair elections and vote buying don't cut it anymore.

Unfortunately for the dems and more pertinently abhisit, you just can't legislate for being unelectable.

So, it would seem that the increase of constituencies and the increase of party list MPs find near universal approval. That's why the Democrat party is blamed.

Now, of course that has nothing to do with a directly elected PM which personally I do not think is a good idea and may only have come to be mentioned because Ms. Yingluck hollowed out the function of PM with all her 'promotional tours' neglecting the constituional role of PM.

Now because asking me, just read the constitution on the PM's role.

[ginjag]

The lowest level of intelligence is in the ruling party, hence the mega problems and catastrophic blunders coming out of the cabinet decisions.

A major reform has to take place to put an end once and for all anything happening again on this scale. Accounts needed for all government spending and NO per cent deductions for ANYONE. Clean bona fide construction/projects by reputable companies across the board.

No water management dubious spending--Rice speaks for itself--Tablets for kids--Joke company--and the rest. The reason to follow the money.

Out of curiosity Ginjag, can you list any examples of Democrat wrongdoing, corruption or mismanagement?

Or in your world are they faultless and perfect.

(please don't respond with they just did a little bit and Thaksin took it to extremes - because that's BS)

Excuse me my man, did I mention anything about the Dems, ???? I am not a Dem man, nor any party supporter, I see mega wrongs and post about them.

My response is nothing to do with the Dems, this is in your mind not mine. You fight for the wrongs being done and you would look more good as a poster should be.

Your posts always counter any argument about corruption and scams with the DEMS subject. Looking for other wrongs does not justify what is happening NOW.

All wrongdoers should be handed over to the courts. Please do not condone this corrupt regime.

So no list then?

The Dems are not in power, so I do not have any gripe about their wrongdoings. If they were I would list them. This present time is important -We could go on for eternity for the wrong doings of parties.

My post spells out what is wrong here, and you seem to be a poster who wishes to blame all but this government. Get a life man, If the next government makes the same in your face corrupt practices, give them hell along side me.

[binjalin]

I think the way Ms. Yingluck has given form to the role of PM has done great damage to that position. She functioned more like a president or the royal family would in many democratic countries, rather than being a PM.

What is the difference between a president and a prime minister??????? NONE

hmm I think there is... PM elected by the Parliament and President by the people by direct vote? so Suthep is advocating a republic??? of course we cannot discuss that here! Shhhh

Faulty logic, my dear binj.

do some studying and if you still fail to see where you went wrong, ask me (nicely)

twas tongue in cheek dear Ruby... over your head? more coffee?

[coma]

Maybe they can contemplate allowing an PM to stay in office for no longer than 2 terms as well.

I believe that was one of the changes to the 1997 constitution in the 2007 coup led referendum.

Really ? I didn't know that. Cheers.

[Gweiloman]

I wonder who increase the party list mp from 100 to 125 a few years back? Mark?

Why does this matter now?

btw I don' t like the derogative use of the name Mark, Are you talking about Khun Abhisit?

Who are you to belittle a well educated and integer person ?

Can you compare your standard only slightly with Khun Abhisit?

I doubt that

Why is calling him Mark derogative? Isn't it the name that he gave himself whilst in the UK?

It's no different from other posters referring to YL by her nickname of Poo..... (or should that be Khun Poo?).

You are not trying to be "Thai-er" that Thais are you?

[Baerboxer]

"...during the fifth national reform forum held by the anti-government People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) yesterday in Bangkok's Lumpini Park.

The proposal was made by Thirapat Serirangsan, chairman of the Political Development Council and a former cabinet minister under the junta-appointed Surayud Chulanont administration"

Only the Amart media would couch Lumpini park speeches in officialese, characterizing them as being some sort of regularly occuring, professional forum....And then unashamedly quoting a coup-rooted personage as if there was some degree of credibility.

As I write this, a news conference by the UDD from yesterday, is playing on the AsiaUpdate channel, featuring presentations by Pro-Democracy speakers. Isn't happening as far as the media is concerned. The electoral majority be damned.

Just goes to show that coup-rooted speakers from coup-mongering stages are pre-eminent to the media....It hasn't ocurred to anti-democrats, that electoral issues such as this, can only be deliberated in a nationally representative Parliament.

Wow! The UDD listening to Pro-Democracy speakers. That is a good step forward. Let's hope the UDD listen and take an interest in democracy and the rule of law.

[binjalin]

I wonder who increase the party list mp from 100 to 125 a few years back? Mark?

Why does this matter now?

btw I don' t like the derogative use of the name Mark, Are you talking about Khun Abhisit?

Who are you to belittle a well educated and integer person ?

Can you compare your standard only slightly with Khun Abhisit?

I doubt that

Why is calling him Mark derogative? Isn't it the name that he gave himself whilst in the UK?

It's no different from other posters referring to YL by her nickname of Poo..... (or should that be Khun Poo?).

You are not trying to be "Thai-er" that Thais are you

completely agree - nothing worse than 'Thai-er than Thai' farang snobs

[HonestQuietBob]

So no list then?

The Dems are not in power, so I do not have any gripe about their wrongdoings. If they were I would list them. This present time is important -We could go on for eternity for the wrong doings of parties.

My post spells out what is wrong here, and you seem to be a poster who wishes to blame all but this government. Get a life man, If the next government makes the same in your face corrupt practices, give them hell along side me.

If the Reds get tossed out it's the Democrats and their allies who will take over.

Should you not be aware of how this particular outfit operates if you are supporting an overthrow that will lead to them being handed power?

They have been in power before, they have a history.

Do you know anything of it?

Was there any wrongdoing, corruption or malfeasance?

You seem desperate to avoid listing the Democrats faults and failures.

Could it be their record is as bad or worse than the current lot you want tossed out and acknowledging this fact derails your argument against the current government?

I think it be so.

[Baerboxer]

The lowest level of intelligence is in the ruling party, hence the mega problems and catastrophic blunders coming out of the cabinet decisions.

A major reform has to take place to put an end once and for all anything happening again on this scale. Accounts needed for all government spending and NO per cent deductions for ANYONE. Clean bona fide construction/projects by reputable companies across the board.

No water management dubious spending--Rice speaks for itself--Tablets for kids--Joke company--and the rest. The reason to follow the money.

Out of curiosity Ginjag, can you list any examples of Democrat wrongdoing, corruption or mismanagement?

Or in your world are they faultless and perfect.

(please don't respond with they just did a little bit and Thaksin took it to extremes - because that's BS)

Excuse me my man, did I mention anything about the Dems, ???? I am not a Dem man, nor any party supporter, I see mega wrongs and post about them.

My response is nothing to do with the Dems, this is in your mind not mine. You fight for the wrongs being done and you would look more good as a poster should be.

Your posts always counter any argument about corruption and scams with the DEMS subject. Looking for other wrongs does not justify what is happening NOW.

All wrongdoers should be handed over to the courts. Please do not condone this corrupt regime.

So no list then?

Behave Bob. He posted comments about the incumbent caretaker government,

Stop trying the usual pro-PTP get out for everything "what about the Dems then" and usual tactic of keep demanding an answer. All hoping to change the subject from the massively corrupt and inept current caretaker government with so many examples.

Why don't you challenge his comments and examples regarding PTP's performance? Where is your list of answers then? Or do you accept his list?

[Baerboxer]

So no list then?

The Dems are not in power, so I do not have any gripe about their wrongdoings. If they were I would list them. This present time is important -We could go on for eternity for the wrong doings of parties.

My post spells out what is wrong here, and you seem to be a poster who wishes to blame all but this government. Get a life man, If the next government makes the same in your face corrupt practices, give them hell along side me.

If the Reds get tossed out it's the Democrats and their allies who will take over.

Should you not be aware of how this particular outfit operates if you are supporting an overthrow that will lead to them being handed power?

They have been in power before, they have a history.

Do you know anything of it?

Was there any wrongdoing, corruption or malfeasance?

You seem desperate to avoid listing the Democrats faults and failures.

Could it be their record is as bad or worse than the current lot you want tossed out and acknowledging this fact derails your argument against the current government?

I think it be so.

And you seem desperate to change the discussion thread away from PTP and it's performance.

Why's that Bob? Don't you like discussing PTP? No one allowed to discuss them Bob? Do you find these things indefensible Bob?

Stop diverting Bob, it's become so transparent. Let's here your thoughts on PTP's performance especially the projects Ginjag listed as examples.

Do you think the rice scheme as success, free from corruption Bob?

Was the procurement of tablets well handled Bob?

What did happen to the water management Bob?

Let's here from you on PTP's performance, transparency and how they've acted within the law.

Come on Bob, no wriggling or trying to change the subject. Give us you supported opinions on the performance of the YL government.

[HonestQuietBob]

Behave Bob. He posted comments about the incumbent caretaker government,

Stop trying the usual pro-PTP get out for everything "what about the Dems then" and usual tactic of keep demanding an answer. All hoping to change the subject from the massively corrupt and inept current caretaker government with so many examples.

Why don't you challenge his comments and examples regarding PTP's performance? Where is your list of answers then? Or do you accept his list?

"No water management dubious spending--Rice speaks for itself--Tablets for kids--Joke company--and the rest".

Why don't I challenge his comments?

Because the accusations are just a regurgitation of baseless and unproven allegations by supporters of an illegal movement trying to overthrow a legitimate, popularly elected government.

If the reason that justifies throwing out PTP is that they are corrupt and incompetent then it wouldn't make sense to install another corrupt and incompetent group once they are gone. So as one so keen to see the back of Yiingluck, was does Ginjag know about those that will replace her?

Tell us about the Democrats, does their history suggest that they will be any different than PTP?

If they won't be than the whole argument falls in a heap and the coup mongers haven't a leg to stand on.

Could it be that one side has either fabricated or exaggerated allegations of corruption and incompetence against the other side in order to justify their illegal and unwanted coup?

[HonestQuietBob]

So no list then?

The Dems are not in power, so I do not have any gripe about their wrongdoings. If they were I would list them. This present time is important -We could go on for eternity for the wrong doings of parties.

My post spells out what is wrong here, and you seem to be a poster who wishes to blame all but this government. Get a life man, If the next government makes the same in your face corrupt practices, give them hell along side me.

If the Reds get tossed out it's the Democrats and their allies who will take over.

Should you not be aware of how this particular outfit operates if you are supporting an overthrow that will lead to them being handed power?

They have been in power before, they have a history.

Do you know anything of it?

Was there any wrongdoing, corruption or malfeasance?

You seem desperate to avoid listing the Democrats faults and failures.

Could it be their record is as bad or worse than the current lot you want tossed out and acknowledging this fact derails your argument against the current government?

I think it be so.

And you seem desperate to change the discussion thread away from PTP and it's performance.

Why's that Bob? Don't you like discussing PTP? No one allowed to discuss them Bob? Do you find these things indefensible Bob?

Stop diverting Bob, it's become so transparent. Let's here your thoughts on PTP's performance especially the projects Ginjag listed as examples.

Do you think the rice scheme as success, free from corruption Bob?

Was the procurement of tablets well handled Bob?

What did happen to the water management Bob?

Let's here from you on PTP's performance, transparency and how they've acted within the law.

Come on Bob, no wriggling or trying to change the subject. Give us you supported opinions on the performance of the YL government.

1. Rice Scheme is sweet. Just needs some minor tweaking. Nothing in Thailand is free from corruption.

2. Yes it was. Millions of kids who would otherwise never have laid hands on a tablet now own one. The Chinese went bust, new supplier has been found. Such is life move on.

3. Look like nothing more than the usual low level Thai corruption. Again move on.

If you guys are so unwillingly to admit any fault or failings by the Democrats how about this,

Can you list 3 things the PTP have done well?

Or are they 100% crap?

[SICHONSTEVE]

A sad indication of the low level of intelligence among the self styled 'elite' in Thailand. The PM would still be exactly the same person, the leader of the party with the most votes. Just try to imagine a different outcome for a moment. The people elect a PTP government, but vote for Suthep as PM. Or they elect a 'Democrat' government and vote for Yingluck as PM. Does any of that sound like even a remotely good idea?

It appears to be along the lines of the US system, where the executive is split from the legislative (president / congress + senate)

Adds an extra layer of protection against majority rule but also stifles the ability of an administration to govern effectively.

Look at all the chaos the Republicans have caused in the US with government shutdowns etc. - and they only control 1 of the 3 bodies (lower house)

The US system is much more susceptible to money politics and undue influence than the English Westminster system - so it's probably no good for Thailand.

Then why doesn't Thailand adopt the UK model - probably the fairest system of government (or at least up there with them) in the world.

I imagine that countries such as Australia and Germany have decent parliaments.

If only the British policing professionalism could be adopted in Thailand.............time to wake up!!!

[billd766]

I wonder who increase the party list mp from 100 to 125 a few years back? Mark?

You mean together with raising the total number of MP's to 500?

There may be 500 seats, but the only beneficiaries of abhisits changes to the organic laws on the election of MP's were meant to be the dems in the 2011 election, for two reasons

1. abhisit changed the multi seat constituencies to single seat constituencies to keep his coalition partners sweet, yet coincidentally the number of seats in the North and North East were reduced by 16 and only 2 in the south, for obvious reasons.

2. abhisit also increased the number of party list MP's (being one himself) from 80 to 125 as historically the dems gain more party list seats than constituency seats.

So having loaded the bases in preparation for the election, abhisit seems to have forgotten that also historically, the dems have a less than stellar reputaion for winning elections and old standbys like blaming unfair elections and vote buying don't cut it anymore.

Unfortunately for the dems and more pertinently abhisit, you just can't legislate for being unelectable.

As I understand the party list system the more elected MPs a party has the more party list MPs they get.

For example if the Democrats win 100 seats they get X party list MPs. If the PTP win 200 seats they get 2X party list MPs.

Using that as an example and if I am wrong I am sure that someone will correct me, how can the Democrats who usually win less elected seats have more party list MPs than the PTP who generally win more elected seats. I can't figure that bit out, can you?

[ginjag]

So no list then?

The Dems are not in power, so I do not have any gripe about their wrongdoings. If they were I would list them. This present time is important -We could go on for eternity for the wrong doings of parties.

My post spells out what is wrong here, and you seem to be a poster who wishes to blame all but this government. Get a life man, If the next government makes the same in your face corrupt practices, give them hell along side me.

If the Reds get tossed out it's the Democrats and their allies who will take over.

Should you not be aware of how this particular outfit operates if you are supporting an overthrow that will lead to them being handed power?

They have been in power before, they have a history.

Do you know anything of it?

Was there any wrongdoing, corruption or malfeasance?

You seem desperate to avoid listing the Democrats faults and failures.

Could it be their record is as bad or worse than the current lot you want tossed out and acknowledging this fact derails your argument against the current government?

I think it be so.

If the reds get tossed out it is their lousy management not mine or any other party apart from the Rs lickers who are in coalition with them.

How do you know who it will be in power. ?? If you look at history doesn't it tell you your party that you will hear nothing against have been thrown out mostly because of fraud and other related things. The Dems were not elected but Abhisit took the helm for 2 years because of all the B/S coming from WHO ?

So every government other than YOURS has had a worse record. YOU list the wrongs on the scale of this regime. Your getting a pain now.--with your rants about other than the party in power. explain who else has lost 1 trillion baht + than is not recorded properly, you have a lot to learn, but you will never want to do that, you have a hatred for anyone that speaks about truths ---why is there a problem here ---Suthep--Abhisit--- NO......the Shins and the reds they are causing the breakdown of this country.

[whybother]

I wonder who increase the party list mp from 100 to 125 a few years back? Mark?

You mean together with raising the total number of MP's to 500?

There may be 500 seats, but the only beneficiaries of abhisits changes to the organic laws on the election of MP's were meant to be the dems in the 2011 election, for two reasons

1. abhisit changed the multi seat constituencies to single seat constituencies to keep his coalition partners sweet, yet coincidentally the number of seats in the North and North East were reduced by 16 and only 2 in the south, for obvious reasons.

2. abhisit also increased the number of party list MP's (being one himself) from 80 to 125 as historically the dems gain more party list seats than constituency seats.

So having loaded the bases in preparation for the election, abhisit seems to have forgotten that also historically, the dems have a less than stellar reputaion for winning elections and old standbys like blaming unfair elections and vote buying don't cut it anymore.

Unfortunately for the dems and more pertinently abhisit, you just can't legislate for being unelectable.

Constituencies have on average 170,000 voters, so it appears that under the previous set up the north and north east were over represented.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/05/30/thailands-electoral-rules/

The PTP would gain just as much as the Democrats by the increase in the number of party list MPs.

[whybother]

As I understand the party list system the more elected MPs a party has the more party list MPs they get.

For example if the Democrats win 100 seats they get X party list MPs. If the PTP win 200 seats they get 2X party list MPs.

Using that as an example and if I am wrong I am sure that someone will correct me, how can the Democrats who usually win less elected seats have more party list MPs than the PTP who generally win more elected seats. I can't figure that bit out, can you?

There are two votes. One constituency vote and one party list vote. The local candidate with the highest constituency vote becomes an MP, and the part list seats are distributed proportionally based on the national party list vote.

Explained in more detail here: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/05/30/thailands-electoral-rules/

[Scamper]

The option of an appointed prime minister through a vote in the Senate through Article 7 is a constitutional stop-gap measure - an interim solution to a constitutional vacuum. But the overall idea here - of a directly elected prime minister - is sound. The idea is that in lieu of 50 % of the popular vote, a run-off between the two top candidates would occur. And the result of that is that the winner could justifiably maintain that he or she has the backing of majority populous support in the country. It is also true that corruption would be substantially decreased if many of the ideas posed in this forum came to fruition, as they are all geared towards tackling the issue of corruption.

" It shouldn't be that anyone with money and status can just form a political party … because this is the root cause of graft and corruption," Suthep said. "

He's right. That's exactly what happened with Thaksin and all the parties and sub-parties that he formed. To truly eradicate corruption would be to present rules that would make it impossible - no matter how rich an individual might be - to subvert and corrupt the system towards his own ends. That's why Thaksin really hates all these ideas. But until money is taken out of the system, it will rule it. The thing that is tantamount, however, is that everything must proceed along constitutional lines. Tomorrow, that process takes a big step. The Constitutional Court will issue its ruling. How Pheu Thai and the UDD respond to it will be key. The army is sworn to protect the judiciary, their rulings, and the constitution. Any other path would be one of anarchy.

[whybother]

Having run off elections until someone gets more than 50% of the vote would make sense for all MPs, not just the PM.

[rubl]

hmm I think there is... PM elected by the Parliament and President by the people by direct vote? so Suthep is advocating a republic??? of course we cannot discuss that here! Shhhh

Faulty logic, my dear binj.

do some studying and if you still fail to see where you went wrong, ask me (nicely)

twas tongue in cheek dear Ruby... over your head? more coffee?

With your normal stand on these issues it could easily be taken as your normal trolling, my dear Binj.

[fab4]

I wonder who increase the party list mp from 100 to 125 a few years back? Mark?

You mean together with raising the total number of MP's to 500?

There may be 500 seats, but the only beneficiaries of abhisits changes to the organic laws on the election of MP's were meant to be the dems in the 2011 election, for two reasons

1. abhisit changed the multi seat constituencies to single seat constituencies to keep his coalition partners sweet, yet coincidentally the number of seats in the North and North East were reduced by 16 and only 2 in the south, for obvious reasons.

2. abhisit also increased the number of party list MP's (being one himself) from 80 to 125 as historically the dems gain more party list seats than constituency seats.

So having loaded the bases in preparation for the election, abhisit seems to have forgotten that also historically, the dems have a less than stellar reputaion for winning elections and old standbys like blaming unfair elections and vote buying don't cut it anymore.

Unfortunately for the dems and more pertinently abhisit, you just can't legislate for being unelectable.

So, it would seem that the increase of constituencies and the increase of party list MPs find near universal approval. That's why the Democrat party is blamed.

Now, of course that has nothing to do with a directly elected PM which personally I do not think is a good idea and may only have come to be mentioned because Ms. Yingluck hollowed out the function of PM with all her 'promotional tours' neglecting the constituional role of PM.

Now because asking me, just read the constitution on the PM's role.

"So, it would seem that the increase of constituencies and the increase of party list MPs find near universal approval. That's why the Democrat party is blamed."

Why do you come to that conclusion? The democrat party i.e abhisit amended the constitution to favour his party. The NACC or the CC said nothing - typical of their biased relationship with their political party.

If you want to play the off topic game again, to make up for not being able to protect your poster boy in debate, please tell everybody just what your flawed opinion of Yingluck's performance as PM has to do with this stupid idea put forward in the OP.

I'll save you the bother, it has nothing to do with the OP but you'd thought you'd use the occasion to diss the government. OK we get it, you don't like the government or the UDD or Thaksin and you're willing to put up with anything as long as the Shinawatra's are not involved. Good luck with that.

[Fryslan boppe]

I think the way Ms. Yingluck has given form to the role of PM has done great damage to that position. She functioned more like a president or the royal family would in many democratic countries, rather than being a PM.

What is the difference between a president and a prime minister??????? NONE

The leader of a Constitutional Monarchy form of Govt. is generally referred to as a 'Prime Minister"...You will notice places like Canada, Australia, England, etc, have "Prime Ministers", Loosely meaning "first among equals", as in the Ministers in a Cabinet

The leader of a "Republic" form of Govt. often has the title of President.

IMHO, the Thai form of a "Constitutional Monarchy" is by far the superior form of Govt., as long as all component elements actualize their roles, and don't reach beyond them.

Ms. Y. has been exemplary in her role as PM....Many will disagree about that on this forum, but they, like me, are mostly inconsequential farangs. The consequential electoral majority agrees with me.

As an aside and my apologies for going slightly off-topic, those who are agenized to criticize Ms. Y. as in the Post quoted above, will often point to the alleged undue influence of Thaksin...That critique is negated by a couple factors....Number 1, Thaksin was heavily involved in a transparent and up-front way during the election...The electoral majority had no problem with that, and by their vote, invited his participation...It only vexed the 2006 coup-makers, as the election effectively invalidated them.

Another reason negating the critique about Thaksin's involvement, is that in this form of Govt., there is often a collegial approach to governance, with advisors having significant roles in the PM office, some more than others.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Fryslan boppe

[SICHONSTEVE]

I think the way Ms. Yingluck has given form to the role of PM has done great damage to that position. She functioned more like a president or the royal family would in many democratic countries, rather than being a PM.

What is the difference between a president and a prime minister??????? NONE

The leader of a Constitutional Monarchy form of Govt. is generally referred to as a 'Prime Minister"...You will notice places like Canada, Australia, England, etc, have "Prime Ministers", Loosely meaning "first among equals", as in the Ministers in a Cabinet

The leader of a "Republic" form of Govt. often has the title of President.

IMHO, the Thai form of a "Constitutional Monarchy" is by far the superior form of Govt., as long as all component elements actualize their roles, and don't reach beyond them.

Ms. Y. has been exemplary in her role as PM....Many will disagree about that on this forum, but they, like me, are mostly inconsequential farangs. The consequential electoral majority agree with me.

As an aside, those who are agenized to criticize Ms. Y., will often point to the alleged undue influence of Thaksin...That critique is negated by a couple factors....Number 1, Thaksin was heavily involved in a transparent and up-front way during the election...The electoral majority had no problem with that, and by their vote, invited his participation...It only vexed the 2006 coup-makers, as it effectively invalidated them.

Another reason negating the critique about Thaksin's involvement, is that in this form of Govt., there is often a collegial approach to governance, with advisors having significant roles, some more than others.

I read this posting not knowing who it was written by and hazarded a guess at whom it originated from - guess what!! when I checked up on it, I found out that I was correct.

Proves that when you adopt a certain penning style others cannot, despite how hard they try, imitate 'pure' garbage in the actual writers style!!!

[whybother]

The leader of a Constitutional Monarchy form of Govt. is generally referred to as a 'Prime Minister"...You will notice places like Canada, Australia, England, etc, have "Prime Ministers", Loosely meaning "first among equals", as in the Ministers in a Cabinet

The leader of a "Republic" form of Govt. often has the title of President.

IMHO, the Thai form of a "Constitutional Monarchy" is by far the superior form of Govt., as long as all component elements actualize their roles, and don't reach beyond them.

Ms. Y. has been exemplary in her role as PM....Many will disagree about that on this forum, but they, like me, are mostly inconsequential farangs. The consequential electoral majority agree with me.

As an aside, those who are agenized to criticize Ms. Y., will often point to the alleged undue influence of Thaksin...That critique is negated by a couple factors....Number 1, Thaksin was heavily involved in a transparent and up-front way during the election...The electoral majority had no problem with that, and by their vote, invited his participation...It only vexed the 2006 coup-makers, as it effectively invalidated them.

Another reason negating the critique about Thaksin's involvement, is that in this form of Govt., there is often a collegial approach to governance, with advisors having significant roles, some more than others.

" those who are agenized to criticize Ms. Y" ???

Is this something to do with getting rid of the rotting rice?

age·nize vt \ˈā-jə-ˌnīz\

age·nized age·niz·ing

Definition of AGENIZE

: to treat (flour) with nitrogen trichloride

"Nitrogen trichloride, also known as trichloramine, is the chemical compound with the formula NCl3. This yellow, oily, pungent-smelling liquid is most commonly encountered as a byproduct of chemical reactions between ammonia-derivatives and chlorine"

[MunterHunter]

It appears to be along the lines of the US system, where the executive is split from the legislative (president / congress + senate)

Adds an extra layer of protection against majority rule but also stifles the ability of an administration to govern effectively.

Look at all the chaos the Republicans have caused in the US with government shutdowns etc. - and they only control 1 of the 3 bodies (lower house)

The US system is much more susceptible to money politics and undue influence than the English Westminster system - so it's probably no good for Thailand.

I find myself in agreement with you.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[rubl]

There may be 500 seats, but the only beneficiaries of abhisits changes to the organic laws on the election of MP's were meant to be the dems in the 2011 election, for two reasons

1. abhisit changed the multi seat constituencies to single seat constituencies to keep his coalition partners sweet, yet coincidentally the number of seats in the North and North East were reduced by 16 and only 2 in the south, for obvious reasons.

2. abhisit also increased the number of party list MP's (being one himself) from 80 to 125 as historically the dems gain more party list seats than constituency seats.

So having loaded the bases in preparation for the election, abhisit seems to have forgotten that also historically, the dems have a less than stellar reputaion for winning elections and old standbys like blaming unfair elections and vote buying don't cut it anymore.

Unfortunately for the dems and more pertinently abhisit, you just can't legislate for being unelectable.

So, it would seem that the increase of constituencies and the increase of party list MPs find near universal approval. That's why the Democrat party is blamed.

Now, of course that has nothing to do with a directly elected PM which personally I do not think is a good idea and may only have come to be mentioned because Ms. Yingluck hollowed out the function of PM with all her 'promotional tours' neglecting the constituional role of PM.

Now because asking me, just read the constitution on the PM's role.

"So, it would seem that the increase of constituencies and the increase of party list MPs find near universal approval. That's why the Democrat party is blamed."

Why do you come to that conclusion? The democrat party i.e abhisit amended the constitution to favour his party. The NACC or the CC said nothing - typical of their biased relationship with their political party.

If you want to play the off topic game again, to make up for not being able to protect your poster boy in debate, please tell everybody just what your flawed opinion of Yingluck's performance as PM has to do with this stupid idea put forward in the OP.

I'll save you the bother, it has nothing to do with the OP but you'd thought you'd use the occasion to diss the government. OK we get it, you don't like the government or the UDD or Thaksin and you're willing to put up with anything as long as the Shinawatra's are not involved. Good luck with that.

My dear chap, it's even less clear that the Democrat-led coalition government amended the constitution regarding the number of party list seat and regarding the number of constituencies to favour the Democrat party.

BTW I didn't start on the parliament extension, I just replied to member Suriya4 who in this topic of directly elected PM wondered about party list MP's. My reply was strictly factual as in "also parliament total seats extended". It would seem you were the one trying to blame Abhisit and/or Democrat party for something or another.

[wolf5370]

I've followed all these numerous "anti-corruption" ideas about changing how government and independent agencies are elected, selected, and operated. And the common thread to all these ideas seems to be that substantial changes must be made to the Constitution. So wouldn't it be consistent with the criminal charges brought against the PTP leadership for violating or defying the Constitution that the PDRC and all involved in these forums be charged as well? Of course not because part of the PDRC game plan is to suspend the Constitution via its people committee like Egyptian President Morsi did when he came to power. Then the Constitution would be written by an unelected, elite group of people largely representing the political aspirations of Suthep and the PDRC. This is a dangerous path for the people of Thailand and potential loss of the minimal democracy that it holds.

I'd presume that the changes would be made to the constitution in the legal way- it is possible to make amendments, just not railroad it.

It is a precarious time - and anything that happens now can have serious ramifications for the country long term (whoever makes them or whatever happens). I can't see how a directly elected PM will make any difference at all - people will just vote for the proffered leader of the party they want, party politics is safer than anyway as they can govern themselves internally - replace their leader without needing a new election etc (i.e. power is not so focused). I'm still for decentralised power (devolution and regional parliaments) - that surely gives all sides what they want, if done properly.

We can all argue about the past - but its the future that matters now (and always has really).

[HonestQuietBob]

I think the way Ms. Yingluck has given form to the role of PM has done great damage to that position. She functioned more like a president or the royal family would in many democratic countries, rather than being a PM.

What is the difference between a president and a prime minister??????? NONE

The leader of a Constitutional Monarchy form of Govt. is generally referred to as a 'Prime Minister"...You will notice places like Canada, Australia, England, etc, have "Prime Ministers", Loosely meaning "first among equals", as in the Ministers in a Cabinet

The leader of a "Republic" form of Govt. often has the title of President.

IMHO, the Thai form of a "Constitutional Monarchy" is by far the superior form of Govt., as long as all component elements actualize their roles, and don't reach beyond them.

Ms. Y. has been exemplary in her role as PM....Many will disagree about that on this forum, but they, like me, are mostly inconsequential farangs. The consequential electoral majority agree with me.

As an aside, those who are agenized to criticize Ms. Y., will often point to the alleged undue influence of Thaksin...That critique is negated by a couple factors....Number 1, Thaksin was heavily involved in a transparent and up-front way during the election...The electoral majority had no problem with that, and by their vote, invited his participation...It only vexed the 2006 coup-makers, as it effectively invalidated them.

Another reason negating the critique about Thaksin's involvement, is that in this form of Govt., there is often a collegial approach to governance, with advisors having significant roles, some more than others.

I read this posting not knowing who it was written by and hazarded a guess at whom it originated from - guess what!! when I checked up on it, I found out that I was correct.

Proves that when you adopt a certain penning style others cannot, despite how hard they try, imitate 'pure' garbage in the actual writers style!!!

Funny that, I've reached the same conclusion of the DJ

[kimamey]

"...during the fifth national reform forum held by the anti-government People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) yesterday in Bangkok's Lumpini Park.

The proposal was made by Thirapat Serirangsan, chairman of the Political Development Council and a former cabinet minister under the junta-appointed Surayud Chulanont administration"

Only the Amart media would couch Lumpini park speeches in officialese, characterizing them as being some sort of regularly occuring, professional forum....And then unashamedly quoting a coup-rooted personage as if there was some degree of credibility.

As I write this, a news conference by the UDD from yesterday, is playing on the AsiaUpdate channel, featuring presentations by Pro-Democracy speakers. Isn't happening as far as the media is concerned. The electoral majority be damned.

Just goes to show that coup-rooted speakers from coup-mongering stages are pre-eminent to the media....It hasn't ocurred to anti-democrats, that electoral issues such as this, can only be deliberated in a nationally representative Parliament.

If they didn't say former cabinet minister under the junta-appointed Surayud Chulanont administration" . You'd complain they were covering it up. They are open about so you're complaining about it.

As for the UDD speeches I don't speak Thai so most of my information from here and from my some television and newspapers via my wife.

And you're still going on about coup mongers aren't you. There may be some who want a coup and it's possible some of those are on the government side but I doubt many anti government protesters want one. You may have forgotten that Abhisit spoke out against the coup in 2006.

The trouble with deliberating in a nationally representative Parliament is that here with a PTP government they are likely to just push what they want . The Dems are accused of doing things in their own interest but you seem to think the PTP with their criminal boss are above that type of thing. Don't forget it was the PTP that stopped the army being investigated for their part in the killings in 2010 even though they promised justice.

Have you posted anything that isn't 100% pro PTP and UDD or anything that isn't 100% anti Democrat and anti government. I read a lot of your post although some are a bit longer than they need to be but I may have missed the one that wasn't totally biased.

The validity of posts can usually be determined by their observation of facts and a willingness to see all sides. As far as I can see yours fail miserably.

[fab4]

There may be 500 seats, but the only beneficiaries of abhisits changes to the organic laws on the election of MP's were meant to be the dems in the 2011 election, for two reasons

1. abhisit changed the multi seat constituencies to single seat constituencies to keep his coalition partners sweet, yet coincidentally the number of seats in the North and North East were reduced by 16 and only 2 in the south, for obvious reasons.

2. abhisit also increased the number of party list MP's (being one himself) from 80 to 125 as historically the dems gain more party list seats than constituency seats.

So having loaded the bases in preparation for the election, abhisit seems to have forgotten that also historically, the dems have a less than stellar reputaion for winning elections and old standbys like blaming unfair elections and vote buying don't cut it anymore.

Unfortunately for the dems and more pertinently abhisit, you just can't legislate for being unelectable.

So, it would seem that the increase of constituencies and the increase of party list MPs find near universal approval. That's why the Democrat party is blamed.

Now, of course that has nothing to do with a directly elected PM which personally I do not think is a good idea and may only have come to be mentioned because Ms. Yingluck hollowed out the function of PM with all her 'promotional tours' neglecting the constituional role of PM.

Now because asking me, just read the constitution on the PM's role.

"So, it would seem that the increase of constituencies and the increase of party list MPs find near universal approval. That's why the Democrat party is blamed."

Why do you come to that conclusion? The democrat party i.e abhisit amended the constitution to favour his party. The NACC or the CC said nothing - typical of their biased relationship with their political party.

If you want to play the off topic game again, to make up for not being able to protect your poster boy in debate, please tell everybody just what your flawed opinion of Yingluck's performance as PM has to do with this stupid idea put forward in the OP.

I'll save you the bother, it has nothing to do with the OP but you'd thought you'd use the occasion to diss the government. OK we get it, you don't like the government or the UDD or Thaksin and you're willing to put up with anything as long as the Shinawatra's are not involved. Good luck with that.

My dear chap, it's even less clear that the Democrat-led coalition government amended the constitution regarding the number of party list seat and regarding the number of constituencies to favour the Democrat party.

BTW I didn't start on the parliament extension, I just replied to member Suriya4 who in this topic of directly elected PM wondered about party list MP's. My reply was strictly factual as in "also parliament total seats extended". It would seem you were the one trying to blame Abhisit and/or Democrat party for something or another.

Oh don't play innocent rubl, it's unedifying. You were replying to suriya4's post about party list seats with "You mean together with raising the total number of MP's to 500?" as if this was some gift to the nation from abhisit. Most people who take an interest in Thai politics recognise the benefits to the democrat party of amending the constitution even if you won't.