Forum offers proposal for a directly elected Thai PM

[kimamey]

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.

I think you'll find Thaksin was transparently involved up until the election campaign. The day before I think. As far as I know that's because he wasn't allowed to be involved due to election rules.

Of course if you've got a government under some control of a criminal and that same government is supposed to be be trying to get him to serve his sentence then you've got a conflict of interest and that's not seen as good whatever some of the electorate think. I suspect many voted not because of Thaksin or Yingluck but because they wouldn't vote for the Dems. As for an elected PM I don't really know. It might work here when it wouldn't elsewhere. I have to hear the arguments for and against.

Edited March 20, 2014 by kimamey

[JAG]

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.

This present consitution was written by the army, and suthep and his thugs had the opportunity to make changes, but did not. WHY? if they had he would not have made more money.

There were two undeclared aims in the post coup constitution.

1: To prevent if possible a government not endorsed by the establishment coming to power.

2: In the event of such a government coming to power, to allow the establishment to remove it without having to rely on a ballot.

It has failed at count 1 twice now, as for count 2, well it got Abhisit into office the first time round. We will know soon if it works this time.

But although a good idea, it obviously needs reform to make it 100% reliable.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[GeorgeO]

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 these are meant to be serious responses from you, then you just lost any shred of credibility that you may have previously had...!

[marcusd]

"...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.

I read your posts with awe. Amazed at how one sighted for a cause you appear. No grey only black or white. No middle ground.

And where do you hail from? The lands of so called middle ground. Luckily you can only post not vote and can wallow in your booze.

yor comments cannot open up conversation to find new ways forward only keep people including yourself back and under the hammer if corrupt minorities professing anything to gain money and power

Marcusd. Via tapatalk

[rubl]

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.

Oh don't go that way again, my dear fabs. In many similar discussions you have never managed to properly explain why the changes in constituencies, partylist MPs and total number of MPs would clearly have benefits for the Democrat party.