Thai Democrats blast MP term-limit proposal

[trainman34014]

Can't see their problem as in the Thai system of ''Democracy '' one can become very rich indeed inside two terms. Anyway; grooming Son's, Daughter's, Brothers and Sisters to take over is normal behaviour here, so the family never misses out on the gravy train.

[kimamey]

Democrat Party deputy leader Nipit Intarasombat described the proposal as a daydream, saying the EC has lost touch with reality, as no democratic country has such a restriction.

The biggest term limit in the western democratic world is the president of the United States so I don't know who this idiot is who thinks it's a daydream, but he is certainly an ignorant individual. There have been strong attempts to limit terms for the US congress which of course are defeated because just about every congressman and senator will be against it. There have even been proposals for terms limits for the Justices of the Supreme Court. Many states in America have term limits for their government legislature.

The whole reason is because the longer an elected official is in power the more powerful they get and the greater the chance is they will abuse their power. It's pretty self-evident when people of power start to feel invincible they change.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

He's talking about MPs. Thailand doesn't have a president but members of congress in the US who are similar to MPs don't have a term limit. Maybe it's you who's daydreaming.

Do any other countries have term limits for their MPs or equivalents? Everything seems to be based on what happens in the US at the moment.

There are no limits on the PM or MPs in the UK. It doesn't mean that those that have long parliamentary careers are corrupt. What's needed are checks to make sure all members of the government act correctly however long they remain in parliament. There will always be some problems but proper accountability helps.

I can't see an alternative to political parties but MPs should be able to vote against their party.

Do you propose time limits on board members of corporations or headteachers in schools ect.

Edited July 9, 2014 by kimamey

[tingtongteesood]

On the fence on this one. Whilst it is true that new blood is good, it is also true that experience can be useful. Maybe they could use some kind of quota system and have a mix of both old and new. Either way, the most important thing is to have checks and balances and use them effectively to make sure everybody stays within the bounds of the law. I also believe the 'must have a degree' rule should be done away with and anyone can stand, and that their policies and their actions will decide their fate.

[robblok]

I think the time limit could be a good thing, i mean 8 years being a politician is a long time. I think its good to limit them this way they will be less corrupt as others will have to take it from them. I can see why politicians wont like it.

In a normal democracy i would be against it.. but here it could limit corruption.

Same like that all the scandals of PTP now only come out when others are looking at it (rice anyone). Though of course chances is that it stays hidden still if the same party takes over. Still it will cut their time in the feeding through.

[gchurch259]

Well I hope the USA will pass an Amendment to our Constitution limiting the terms in Congress in the USA.

Two terms in Senate and three terms in House of Representatives.

Good idea for Thailand, also no Military or Police Generals.or any rate unless Reservist.

[JoeThePoster]

May I suggest 8 years in office, 4 years in prison, then again 8 years in office?

[Baerboxer]

I thought the Democrats owned the EC...

Perhaps you were wrong ?

If American presidents can have a term-limit, then why ever not Thai MPs, think of it as 'Thainess in Action' dear Dems !

Are congress or senate members limited to a specified number of terms? Is the British PM or German Chancellor?

[Thai at Heart]

Parry list must be abolished or reduced.

[billd766]

Politicians are not going to let term limits happen as it goes against their core belief (i.e., need for long term power).

Maybe that is why politicians should not be let near political reform.

IMHO there should be NO party list MPs anymore. If you want to be an MP get out and canvas for votes.

If you don't want to do that then you are not fit to be an MP anyway.

[billd766]

Anything that the politicians DON'T like, than I am all for it! Stick the knife in those selfish b#tches and twist it till they scream. #Corrupta$$holes

So you think a system of revolving political newbies is the answer to Thailand's problems?

8 years and you are out to be replaced by a complete political novice...

Don't make me laugh... My sides are still aching from the Brazil v Germany game.

Thailand has just had a PM with NO political experience. It wasn't a problem though as she had a lot of help from her (in) famous brother.

[billd766]

Wonder what will happen when the current election commission's term ends in September.

I can imagine something like:

President of EC: Mr Prayuth

Associate Mr. Prawit.........

more of his military class mates

Did you learn that from Thaksin and the PTP or think it up on your own?

[fasteddie]

Dumb EC, a pathetic idea even for them.

[gerrythepoet]

A term limit is a good idea means you are there to get the job done and not rest on your laurels and the network you have been introduced to or created yourself.

[bigbamboo]

This proposal wouldn't work in Thailand anyway. An MP would serve two terms, then his wife, then his brother- in law, then his son, then his daughter, then the cat.....

[kimamey]

Politicians are not going to let term limits happen as it goes against their core belief (i.e., need for long term power).

Maybe that is why politicians should not be let near political reform.

IMHO there should be NO party list MPs anymore. If you want to be an MP get out and canvas for votes.

If you don't want to do that then you are not fit to be an MP anyway.

If they have party list MPs maybe they should have been elected as MPs first and only then can they be party list.

[attrayant]

I was very sad to see Clinton go, but overjoyed that Bush (aka King George the second) was booted out by term limits. You've got to take the good with the bad.

Most arguments against term limits are pretty facile. For example:

Whilst it is true that new blood is good, it is also true that experience can be useful.

There's nothing preventing a former head of state from contributing his or her experience to a newly elected leader. That's why the US president has many appointed cabinet positions:

Secretary of State

Secretary of the Treasury

Secretary of Defense

Attorney General

Secretary of the Interior

Secretary of Agriculture

Secretary of Commerce

Secretary of Labor

Secretary of Health and Human Services

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

Secretary of Transportation

Secretary of Energy

Secretary of Homeland Security

As well as some other positions like Chief of Staff and I believe there's a even a Federal Chief Technology Officer to advise the president on science and technology matters. It would be unrealistic to expect any head of state to have useful depth of knowledge in all of the above areas. In my opinion, the cabinet is where the experience counts, not the head of state.

Having said all that, I think term limits are a good idea but should be voted upon by the people and, if approved, written into the constitution.

Edited July 9, 2014 by attrayant

[Cuchulainn]

Eight years of a Thai politician is way more than enough.

Days, my dear boy, days!!!

[emilymat]

Fixed terms for 'house politicians' are a very bad idea, if the country is a 'true' democracy. An example of this is the UK House of Commons where we have a guy called Dennis Skinner, who is, and always has been, an avid supporter of the working class and has taken on people such as Margaret Thatcher right through to the present Prime Minister. He was elected in 1970. We also had an MP called Tony Benn who gave up a peerage to support the 'ordinary' people and he served for decades until his recent death. There are many other examples on both sides of the House of Commons.

I think the Thai situation now is that they are scratching around to find what, on the face of it, might seem popular proposals, but I believe they are highly flawed.

Another poster stated the US president was the longest 'fixed term' post in the western world. Not true, the French President is elected for 5 years and can serve two consecutive terms. (And stand again after the break).

The UK is going through its first 5 year 'fixed term parliament' and it is producing a disastrous lame duck government in this final year. I predict the next parliament will abolish that system.

So, Thailand, don't go down the road of believing 'fixing' the term of elected MP's will, in a stroke, benefit the well being of the country. The real problems are much deeper and need to be sorted out if and sort of true democracy is to emerge.

[Emptyset]

This proposal wouldn't work in Thailand anyway. An MP would serve two terms, then his wife, then his brother- in law, then his son, then his daughter, then the cat.....

Yep. You'd just end up losing whatever competent MPs you have and them being replaced by ever more clueless family members. And no political parties? So no manifestos then and no idea what form of government you'll get if you vote for person X at the local poll? So it'll be back to the good old days of the vote being decided on whether the local MP can bring back more funding for his local area and "look after" his constituents. Of course, it's partly like that now but less so since there became two major parties. And local issues should play a part in the vote, but so should national. Having no parties will just entrench the old fasioned patronage politics, not eradicate it.

But then as I've argued previously, they don't mind a bit of vote buying and pork barrel at a local level. Or even a corrupt coalition of provincial MPs. They just fear a PM becoming powerful enough to threaten their interests - e.g. Thaksin. That won't happen if they change the system to their liking, the only chance there will be of a PM with any power is if it's a non-elected PM chosen by them. And there's still a chance of that happening. Could be Suchinda 1992 all over again.

[Emptyset]

I thought the Democrats owned the EC...

People that say this might imagine that the Democrats actually have some sort of power in the anti-Thaksin establishment coalition. They don't. They were used and happy to be used when it was in their interests. But when their interests don't accord with the "greater good" (in the eyes of the establishment), they're dispensable. Not completely dispensable, because come the election they'll be where the establishment places its hope. But when the next election does come around, I expect things will be so "reformed" that the parliament will have very little power anyway, and it won't really matter who wins.

[robblok]

I thought the Democrats owned the EC...

People that say this might imagine that the Democrats actually have some sort of power in the anti-Thaksin establishment coalition. They don't. They were used and happy to be used when it was in their interests. But when their interests don't accord with the "greater good" (in the eyes of the establishment), they're dispensable. Not completely dispensable, because come the election they'll be where the establishment places its hope. But when the next election does come around, I expect things will be so "reformed" that the parliament will have very little power anyway, and it won't really matter who wins.

If you are talking that there will be many checks and balances then I am all for it. Because the problem is that politicans want to be in power here to get payoffs and corruption money from big projects. The moment things like this are checked a lot by independent organisations then they cant steal as much and they wont fight over power anymore because its not profitable to rent a mob if you cant recoup that money by ways of inflating budgets.. giving jobs to family ect.

[Paulzed]

I note they didn't mention the undemocratic appointment of proxy PM's and MP's put in place by ousted and exiled criminals.

And the appointment of friends and family to key government positions to allow the undemocratic passing of legislation etc...

[Emptyset]

I thought the Democrats owned the EC...

People that say this might imagine that the Democrats actually have some sort of power in the anti-Thaksin establishment coalition. They don't. They were used and happy to be used when it was in their interests. But when their interests don't accord with the "greater good" (in the eyes of the establishment), they're dispensable. Not completely dispensable, because come the election they'll be where the establishment places its hope. But when the next election does come around, I expect things will be so "reformed" that the parliament will have very little power anyway, and it won't really matter who wins.

If you are talking that there will be many checks and balances then I am all for it. Because the problem is that politicans want to be in power here to get payoffs and corruption money from big projects. The moment things like this are checked a lot by independent organisations then they cant steal as much and they wont fight over power anymore because its not profitable to rent a mob if you cant recoup that money by ways of inflating budgets.. giving jobs to family ect.

There were already checks and balances. And a government and a budget is necessary, and whoever spends that, whether elected or not, will be involved in corruption to a greater or lesser degree. Minimizing it requires a change in culture. However you try to limit democracy or enforce stringent checks, there are always ways around it. I think a cultural change will take place gradually if the press is empowered to expose corruption. So the one thing I'd change is to scrap the defamation laws. But that's not in the interests of politicians, the military or the establishment. So it's not going to happen.

[robblok]

I thought the Democrats owned the EC...

People that say this might imagine that the Democrats actually have some sort of power in the anti-Thaksin establishment coalition. They don't. They were used and happy to be used when it was in their interests. But when their interests don't accord with the "greater good" (in the eyes of the establishment), they're dispensable. Not completely dispensable, because come the election they'll be where the establishment places its hope. But when the next election does come around, I expect things will be so "reformed" that the parliament will have very little power anyway, and it won't really matter who wins.

If you are talking that there will be many checks and balances then I am all for it. Because the problem is that politicans want to be in power here to get payoffs and corruption money from big projects. The moment things like this are checked a lot by independent organisations then they cant steal as much and they wont fight over power anymore because its not profitable to rent a mob if you cant recoup that money by ways of inflating budgets.. giving jobs to family ect.

There were already checks and balances. And a government and a budget is necessary, and whoever spends that, whether elected or not, will be involved in corruption to a greater or lesser degree. Minimizing it requires a change in culture. However you try to limit democracy or enforce stringent checks, there are always ways around it. I think a cultural change will take place gradually if the press is empowered to expose corruption. So the one thing I'd change is to scrap the defamation laws. But that's not in the interests of politicians, the military or the establishment. So it's not going to happen.

The checks and balances did not work.. everyone predicted the rice program would not work and would cost more then the 0 budgeted for it. They ignored it, and nobody checked the stocks like it is done now showing how bad it was. So yes there are checks and balances but they were not strong enough. Also slashing the NACC its budget by 60% did not help much.

I agree about the defamation it should be gone.

[Dibbler]

In reality, few MPs ever make it through one term, as on average, each Thai government is thrown out well before. But the proposal has value, as it should discourage professional politicians from staying in the system to milk it dry. However, even if it passes, as soon as the junta hands power back to the people, this will be quickly scrapped.

[Robby nz]

As this seems to be only about actual MP's will stick to that.

List MP's are a bad idea in general as all MP's should be elected by the people but while saying that there is also the aspect of someone who may not be elected who would if an MP be of great benefit to the country.

As a cabinet minister does not have to be an MP there would still be a place for such a person but only if they belonged to a ruling party.

No to a 2 year term, let the electorate throw out an MP who is not doing their job, that of course goes with the no list MP's.

How about a compromise. no tern for elected MP's but a single term for list MP's, assuming they keep the list.

Farther, no list MP can be PM, a PM must be elected by the people as well as parliament.

Section 102 of the constitution which is supposed to be there to keep undesirables out of parliament needs to be strengthened.

Nobody with a criminal conviction or who has been previously banned can be an MP, senator or hold a cabinet post.

Anyone who has been charged with any criminal offense or is on bail or awaiting a court appearance on criminal charges is suspended from the above, should they be found not guilty the suspension is lifted, if convicted then they are banned.

PS. There would need to be a definition of what was a criminal charge, for instance no helmet on a motorbike would not count.

No statute of limitations.

No parliamentary immunity.

NACC, PSACC, AGO are all strengthened.

The Senate stays as is, part elected part appointed.

Opps , said I would stick to MP's.

[harrry]

If parliamentarians are supposed to be representatives of the people and work for them a limited term is a good ideal,

If parliamentarians are thought to be the people who run the country to suit their parties ideas a limited term is not a good idea.

I favour the first.

[casualbiker]

This proposal wouldn't work in Thailand anyway. An MP would serve two terms, then his wife, then his brother- in law, then his son, then his daughter, then the cat.....

And the cat would have the best policies!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Theoutsider]

You would be luck to get one full term.

[debrakfurlow]

Yes, there is a country with presidential restriction of 2 terms. The US, and if we thought we could get it passed we'd have limited all political terms. The longer they are in, the more they become corrupted. They learn how to play the system. Yes, voting them out seems like an easy solution, but once they have money from those big buck backers and there hand in the pot it's hard to get them out.