EC's reform plans seem naive, detrimental to democracy
ATTAYUTH BOOTSRIPOOM

BANGKOK: -- AFTER looking at the Election Commission (EC)'s proposals for electoral reform, I wonder if the commission's way of thinking might end up being problematic and whether it will pose an obstruction to democracy.

Several suggestions offered by EC officials show that the agency might be pretending to know more than it actually does.

The proposal that has received the strongest blast is for a change in the constituency election system from a single MPs to multiple MPs per constituency.

This nitty-gritty issue has been debated at length since 1997. Even though the 2007 Constitution opted for a three-MPs-per-constituency system, every political party and democracy advocate agrees that the most suitable system for the country is the single-MP per constituency, which enables election officials to draw a smaller electoral area.

The reason is that with a large electoral area, parliamentary candidates with more money have more opportunities to win. Candidates have to spend millions of baht to campaign effectively in a large constituency. It is almost impossible for a candidate to connect with all electors in a large constituency - so he or she has to seek help from canvassers to woo votes.

It is common that canvassers tend to help the candidate who gives them more money. As long as election officials close their eyes and ears to this fundamental truth, elections can never be an instrument to make democracy flourish - but merely a tool for "money politics" to thrive.

The EC's claim that its proposal helps ensure a free and fair election is without basis in reason or fact.

The proposal attacked by politicians as making EC officials "look like amateurs" is the one that would limit MPs to two consecutive four-year terms. Critics wonder on what grounds the EC has come up with such an absurd proposal.

Although limiting terms would help prevent politicians from becoming power-drunk and clinging to office, this rule is applied only to officials in the executive branch, and not MPs, who are direct representatives of the people. The EC should have realised that not all MPs belong to the government camp. Many must carry out the government-checking role in the opposition camp.

The EC appears naive with its autocratic proposal to make it more difficult to set up a political party that is easier to disband. To strengthen democracy is to make it easy to establish a party.

The EC has proposed that registering a new party should require 5,000 members and a set-up of four provincial branches, whereas earlier only 15 people could register a new party and provincial branches could be set up later, within the next 180 days.

On the other hand, the agency can dissolve any party if it fails to submit meeting reports regularly.

The proposal to empower the EC to be solely responsible for scheduling an election date is seen as an attempt to flex its authoritarian muscles. Such a move would present an obstacle to democracy if the EC is not politically neutral and defers an election in favour of a particular political camp.

What is perceived as even more detrimental to democracy is the proposal to allow the EC to decide which populist policies would cause damage to the country.

The people's power would be stolen in broad daylight if this were allowed.

The people must be given a chance to learn through a democratic process what policies are truly beneficial to them and whether or not they are sustainable in the long term.

To prevent loss or damage incurred from policy corruption, the EC should come up with a strong checking mechanism, and not abort unborn policies designed by politicians.

To sum up, I wonder if the EC is working along democratic principles or if it is pulling the country back.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/ECs-reform-plans-seem-naive-detrimental-to-democra-30238150.html


-- The Nation 2014-07-10

To sum up, I wonder if the EC is working along democratic principles or if it is pulling the country back.

Well either that or totally clueless as to what its doing. ... either way its one heck of a dysfunctional dept... imagine having that as your electoral commission body back home... dosnt bare thinking about.

They really do appear pretty dense.

I mean these rules will only underpin the constitution. Let's try somchais idea to limit an MP to two terms as an original idea.

That was probably tried and thrown out in ancient Greece when they realised it applied to opposition as well as governing MPs. Duuuuuuh

The reason is that with a large electoral area, parliamentary candidates with more money have more opportunities to win. Candidates have to spend millions of baht to campaign effectively in a large constituency. It is almost impossible for a candidate to connect with all electors in a large constituency - so he or she has to seek help from canvassers to woo votes.

Erm.... That is if a party candidate can canvass in a constituency without being threatened with murder. Which is why the Dems struggle to get a foot hold in the north and northeast... Or don't the EC know this is happening?

Give me a week with this commission and I will have it all set up to be free and fair, these clowns don't have the first clue about how to set up a true democratic election.

The Thai military dictatorship should shake them down, check their bank accounts, assets, friendships. Photograph them at the country clubs for lunch and dinner. Tie the noose around their necks, tie them up. Clean up Thailand.

The reason is that with a large electoral area, parliamentary candidates with more money have more opportunities to win. Candidates have to spend millions of baht to campaign effectively in a large constituency. It is almost impossible for a candidate to connect with all electors in a large constituency - so he or she has to seek help from canvassers to woo votes.

Erm.... That is if a party candidate can canvass in a constituency without being threatened with murder. Which is why the Dems struggle to get a foot hold in the north and northeast... Or don't the EC know this is happening?

Give me a week with this commission and I will have it all set up to be free and fair, these clowns don't have the first clue about how to set up a true democratic election.

You think its any different or fair in the south ? ... give me a break I wouldnt let you take my dog for a walk let alone setting up your idea of a free and fair electoral system ... hilarious mumbo jumbo claims of death threats etc, as usual from you sensationalising and absolutely no more solid than pure market gossip rubbish. . The Dems struggle to get a foot hold simply because they have nothing that appeals to the N or NE electorate ... get real, even the Dems admit that.

BTW how many avatars names have you gone through so far ?

At times the EC gives the perception that it is less a neutral entity, more a covert arm of the old Establishment.

The EC will consider every permutation of electoral system to get their "desired" result.

Eventually they will have to concede that the universal 1-person-1-vote system will not achieve that objective in the short term, so they will push for the Thai Senate model with the introduction of appointed MPs (say 25%) as well as elected MPs (ergo 75%). That split should do it.

They need to add in some clauses that make any MP's from a sitting/previous/disbanded party financially responsible for any and all losses incurred by the country due to their policies or (mis)management of the country with no statute on limitations. Hit them where it hurts most (their pockets) and they'll be more inclined to do a proper job rather than simply feathering their own nests at the expense of the country and the people as a whole.

They also need to remove parliamentary immunity for MP's and treat them the same as any other criminal when the occasion warrants.

EC's reform plans seem naive, detrimental to democracy

ATTAYUTH BOOTSRIPOOM

BANGKOK: -- AFTER looking at the Election Commission (EC)'s proposals for electoral reform, I wonder if the commission's way of thinking might end up being problematic and whether it will pose an obstruction to democracy.

That's because the Election Collection Committee were Thaksin's B*******

This group of election commissioner have done a terrible job. If the General wants to do something good for the people. Get rid of this incompetent group and get a new group of commissioners with some balls.

This group of election commissioner have done a terrible job. If the General wants to do something good for the people. Get rid of this incompetent group and get a new group of commissioners with some balls.

Yes, get a few of those old retiring generals, admirals and Air Marshals in to some nice post service jobs.

Of all the proposals discussed in this article, the most asinine is the one that will allow the EC veto power over legislation passed in Parliament deemed to be 'populist and damaging to the nation'. First, why should they have the power to oversee parliament? Two, this whole concept is so nebulous it will only serve to frustrate political parties who want to make meaningful reforms only to have them labeled 'populist' by those opposing them. You can address these issues in much more rational ways like demanding a balanced budget or cap borrowing at a certain amount.

The other big issue that bothers me is the current concept of 'collective' responsibility placed on political parties because of the improper behavior of individuals affiliated with that party. That is, a whole party can be dissolved because of the illegal actions of one individual. If this same concept was applied to western democracies, there would be no political parties.

If reform is to be made, then power and purpose given to the independent agencies must be reformed as well. Basically, they are not accountable to anyone.

Looks like one step forward but 10 steps backwards.

Everything is still the same in Thailand, coup or no coup, totally screwed up. Let the children play but of course they always end up hurting themselves.

Of all the proposals discussed in this article, the most asinine is the one that will allow the EC veto power over legislation passed in Parliament deemed to be 'populist and damaging to the nation'. First, why should they have the power to oversee parliament? Two, this whole concept is so nebulous it will only serve to frustrate political parties who want to make meaningful reforms only to have them labeled 'populist' by those opposing them. You can address these issues in much more rational ways like demanding a balanced budget or cap borrowing at a certain amount.

The other big issue that bothers me is the current concept of 'collective' responsibility placed on political parties because of the improper behavior of individuals affiliated with that party. That is, a whole party can be dissolved because of the illegal actions of one individual. If this same concept was applied to western democracies, there would be no political parties.

If reform is to be made, then power and purpose given to the independent agencies must be reformed as well. Basically, they are not accountable to anyone.

Stop being sensible. All the EC wants is a puppet parliament that can be controlled and vetoed.

"To sum up, I wonder if the EC is working along democratic principles or if it is pulling the country back."

Who is here naive???

Who says that working along democratic principles isn't pulling the country back and who says that non democratic principles won't push the country forward?

Democracy and everything is fine is more than naive......

Of all the proposals discussed in this article, the most asinine is the one that will allow the EC veto power over legislation passed in Parliament deemed to be 'populist and damaging to the nation'. First, why should they have the power to oversee parliament? Two, this whole concept is so nebulous it will only serve to frustrate political parties who want to make meaningful reforms only to have them labeled 'populist' by those opposing them. You can address these issues in much more rational ways like demanding a balanced budget or cap borrowing at a certain amount.

The other big issue that bothers me is the current concept of 'collective' responsibility placed on political parties because of the improper behavior of individuals affiliated with that party. That is, a whole party can be dissolved because of the illegal actions of one individual. If this same concept was applied to western democracies, there would be no political parties.

If reform is to be made, then power and purpose given to the independent agencies must be reformed as well. Basically, they are not accountable to anyone.

Stop being sensible. All the EC wants is a puppet parliament that can be controlled and vetoed.

You're right. I must be suffering dictatorship delirium tremens.

The function of election commission should only be to conduct elections, within rules established by government. This sounds like they have more power than Supreme Court. Who appointed these people and on what basis to they think they can call all the shots?

the EC should be there for electoral reasons only as set out by the constitution. They should be there to set the election dates and be responsible for all the registrations, all the voting centres, freedom for all candidates to canvas voters in all regions/areas, ensure candidates do not resort to vote buying, ensure populist policies are not allowed anywhere by anyone and that all registered parties are genuine and all members/committee members are lawful thai citizens without any warrants/charges against them(this alone would remove a lot of the current stock and remove thaksin from power), this should apply to all candidates as well. Have to admit the idea about setting up parties is a good one, there should be a hell of a lot more than 15 members, it should be in the thousands so that it is truly representitive of the people, there are too many bullsh*t parties here that sell there voting blocks to the highest bidder. The whole electoral process needs re booting so that the corruption is removed.

I do think that limiting MP terms in office is a good thing. I see too often in goverment where politicians gain power, do less, and become too partisan.

Why isn't the EC discussing:

- when an election voting is obstructed due to illegal acts / protest / obstruction, then the election is not considered "VOID". Results should be withheld and they wait to redo voting in areas where voting was obstructed.

- Military should be in charge of voting booth security in Thailand. Why ? Because Thai Police are useless. And this does not make the Military involvement "Voluntary" , it should be mandatory. Cause we all know the military would love for this past election fail. They would side step voting booth security if they have an option.

"To sum up, I wonder if the EC is working along democratic principles or if it is pulling the country back."

Who is here naive???

Who says that working along democratic principles isn't pulling the country back and who says that non democratic principles won't push the country forward?

Democracy and everything is fine is more than naive......

Agree, but in this case, Democratic principles and Democratic party are 2 very different meanings, but I agree, some think Democracy is the problem. It is not.

"To sum up, I wonder if the EC is working along democratic principles or if it is pulling the country back."

Who is here naive???

Who says that working along democratic principles isn't pulling the country back and who says that non democratic principles won't push the country forward?

Democracy and everything is fine is more than naive......

Agree, but in this case, Democratic principles and Democratic party are 2 very different meanings, but I agree, some think Democracy is the problem. It is not.

Democracy isn't the problem and it isn't the solution it is just a tool...not a religion.

I do think that limiting MP terms in office is a good thing. I see too often in goverment where politicians gain power, do less, and become too partisan.

Why isn't the EC discussing:

- when an election voting is obstructed due to illegal acts / protest / obstruction, then the election is not considered "VOID". Results should be withheld and they wait to redo voting in areas where voting was obstructed.

- Military should be in charge of voting booth security in Thailand. Why ? Because Thai Police are useless. And this does not make the Military involvement "Voluntary" , it should be mandatory. Cause we all know the military would love for this past election fail. They would side step voting booth security if they have an option.

Military in charge of voting booth security is a bad idea.

How about reform the Thai police. Or disband the Thai police and rebuild it (if no other choice with the help of the military). But the military should be the defense of the country if everything other fails. Not the regular thing.

The function of election commission should only be to conduct elections, within rules established by government. This sounds like they have more power than Supreme Court. Who appointed these people and on what basis to they think they can call all the shots?

So the government makes the rules for their next election? Very bad idea......

the EC should be there for electoral reasons only as set out by the constitution. They should be there to set the election dates and be responsible for all the registrations, all the voting centres, freedom for all candidates to canvas voters in all regions/areas, ensure candidates do not resort to vote buying, ensure populist policies are not allowed anywhere by anyone and that all registered parties are genuine and all members/committee members are lawful thai citizens without any warrants/charges against them(this alone would remove a lot of the current stock and remove thaksin from power), this should apply to all candidates as well. Have to admit the idea about setting up parties is a good one, there should be a hell of a lot more than 15 members, it should be in the thousands so that it is truly representitive of the people, there are too many bullsh*t parties here that sell there voting blocks to the highest bidder. The whole electoral process needs re booting so that the corruption is removed.

I think it is very hard to put your wishes into general terms into the constitution.

How can you proof that a party is not genuine...OK you may know it, but proof?

One MP get banned and sends instead his wife/sister/home-maid to run for the next election. That isn't OK. We all know that these are nominees, but how to proof it it? You can't write into the constitution that his wife, sisters, home-maids and the gardeners are banned together with a MP....

So either give the EC a lot freedom to decide which they may abuse and if not now maybe in 20 years.

Or you make clear laws, than they can't do much and on any situation not covered they'll be clueless.

Difficult

I do think that limiting MP terms in office is a good thing. I see too often in goverment where politicians gain power, do less, and become too partisan.

Why isn't the EC discussing:

- when an election voting is obstructed due to illegal acts / protest / obstruction, then the election is not considered "VOID". Results should be withheld and they wait to redo voting in areas where voting was obstructed.

- Military should be in charge of voting booth security in Thailand. Why ? Because Thai Police are useless. And this does not make the Military involvement "Voluntary" , it should be mandatory. Cause we all know the military would love for this past election fail. They would side step voting booth security if they have an option.

Military in charge of voting booth security is a bad idea.

How about reform the Thai police. Or disband the Thai police and rebuild it (if no other choice with the help of the military). But the military should be the defense of the country if everything other fails. Not the regular thing.

Disbanding the police would probably be the single most useful thing that the army could do for the country. Dismantling the most corrupt and largest mafia organisation in the country would do more good than 1000 crackdowns on land encroachament or lottery ticket scams.

The reason is that with a large electoral area, parliamentary candidates with more money have more opportunities to win. Candidates have to spend millions of baht to campaign effectively in a large constituency. It is almost impossible for a candidate to connect with all electors in a large constituency - so he or she has to seek help from canvassers to woo votes.

Erm.... That is if a party candidate can canvass in a constituency without being threatened with murder. Which is why the Dems struggle to get a foot hold in the north and northeast... Or don't the EC know this is happening?

Give me a week with this commission and I will have it all set up to be free and fair, these clowns don't have the first clue about how to set up a true democratic election.

The Dems struggle to get a foothold in the north or northeast because they are threatened with murder?

Former Prime Minister Abhisit and Democrat candidate for Constituency 3

seat Kulyakorn campaign in San Kamphaeng District. Constituency 3

consists of Mae On, San Kamphaeng and Doi Saket Districts.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

This group of election commissioner have done a terrible job. If the General wants to do something good for the people. Get rid of this incompetent group and get a new group of commissioners with some balls.

On the contrary, from the Juntas point of view this Election Commission did an excellent job. They managed to stop the February election, thus making the coup rather easier. Imagine the problems if the military had moved to depose a newly re-elected Pheu Thai administration!

Now they are managing to muddy the waters as far as any future democratic framework is concerned.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I do think that limiting MP terms in office is a good thing. I see too often in goverment where politicians gain power, do less, and become too partisan.

Why isn't the EC discussing:

- when an election voting is obstructed due to illegal acts / protest / obstruction, then the election is not considered "VOID". Results should be withheld and they wait to redo voting in areas where voting was obstructed.

- Military should be in charge of voting booth security in Thailand. Why ? Because Thai Police are useless. And this does not make the Military involvement "Voluntary" , it should be mandatory. Cause we all know the military would love for this past election fail. They would side step voting booth security if they have an option.

Military in charge of voting booth security is a bad idea.

How about reform the Thai police. Or disband the Thai police and rebuild it (if no other choice with the help of the military). But the military should be the defense of the country if everything other fails. Not the regular thing.

I agree, just have never seen the Police do anything right! Reform is definately needed. What happens with police is that the demonstrators will push the police, Police react, and then the Goverment and Police get brought up on charges ALL The time! With the military, it doesn't happen. Obviously, Thailand is a different situation vs. other nations. Truly, Military is there and they have the power and have the respect of the people. It will take many years for Thai Police to gain any real respect of the people. Sad but true / reality.

This group of election commissioner have done a terrible job. If the General wants to do something good for the people. Get rid of this incompetent group and get a new group of commissioners with some balls.

On the contrary, from the Juntas point of view this Election Commission did an excellent job. They managed to stop the February election, thus making the coup rather easier. Imagine the problems if the military had moved to depose a newly re-elected Pheu Thai administration!

Now they are managing to muddy the waters as far as any future democratic framework is concerned.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The real fix needs to be, that the constitution blocked the rights /votes of the people in this last election. Any rival group now knows, all they need to do is to block 3-4 Election voting booths nation wide, and then, the election did not take place throughout the entire nation on the same days, hence, the Vote is voided. Now how wrong of a situation is this? The Constitution has not options to deal with Illegal blocking of voter booths, hence, all hands are tied.

Also, the Gov't has the right to call the Military to assist in security for elections, but in Thai Gov't structure, the Military does not need to accept/assist. This is CRAZY cause we know that the Thai Military has no liking to the Majority Gov't and they certainly are not going to protect the Voter rights of the Majority at the expense of the minority demonstrators. So this needs to be fixed. This is where reforms are needed. I am quite sure the Military will never let this happen. Why wold they?

This group of election commissioner have done a terrible job. If the General wants to do something good for the people. Get rid of this incompetent group and get a new group of commissioners with some balls.

On the contrary, from the Juntas point of view this Election Commission did an excellent job. They managed to stop the February election, thus making the coup rather easier. Imagine the problems if the military had moved to depose a newly re-elected Pheu Thai administration!

Now they are managing to muddy the waters as far as any future democratic framework is concerned.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The real fix needs to be, that the constitution blocked the rights /votes of the people in this last election. Any rival group now knows, all they need to do is to block 3-4 Election voting booths nation wide, and then, the election did not take place throughout the entire nation on the same days, hence, the Vote is voided. Now how wrong of a situation is this? The Constitution has not options to deal with Illegal blocking of voter booths, hence, all hands are tied.

Also, the Gov't has the right to call the Military to assist in security for elections, but in Thai Gov't structure, the Military does not need to accept/assist. This is CRAZY cause we know that the Thai Military has no liking to the Majority Gov't and they certainly are not going to protect the Voter rights of the Majority at the expense of the minority demonstrators. So this needs to be fixed. This is where reforms are needed. I am quite sure the Military will never let this happen. Why wold they?

Drand11 Right on the money, utterly agree with your argument.