Anti-graft body wants EC to review populist policies

[Lite Beer]

Anti-graft body wants EC to review populist policies
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The National Anti-Corruption Commission will seek assistance from the Election Commission to try to prevent political parties implementing populist policies that damage the country, NACC secretary-general Sansern Polchiak said Friday.

Sansern said the two bodies would meet soon to discuss measures to try to stop the country incurring huge losses as a result of populist policies such as the rice-pledging scheme.

He said the NACC was inspired to create a preventive mechanism after questioning officials linked to the rice-pledging scheme.

These officials knew the drawbacks of the project but believed it had to continue because it was a major poll campaign promise.

Sansern said the NACC would propose to the EC, which has direct responsibility for organising elections, that it issue regulations and check the feasibility of campaign policies of all parties before allowing them to be advertised.

He said political parties had to provide clearer details on populist policies such as sources of funding, their possible negative impact and ways to prevent an adverse impact.

"We want to prevent the same problems from being repeated because we have a number of corruption complaints in connection with populist policies,'' he said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Anti-graft-body-wants-EC-to-review-populist-polici-30238298.html

-- The Nation 2014-07-11

[leesgems]

Could go the other way completely and come up with populist policies that make money for the government rather than costing it.

[NeverSure]

Could go the other way completely and come up with populist policies that make money for the government rather than costing it.

"Could go the other way completely and come up with populist policies that make money for the government politicians rather than costing it them."

They already have that.

[pookiki]

Without a clear definition of terms, this seems nothing more than an attempt to micromanage political parties. In addition, what may be considered populist policies could be introduced in Parliament (if there is another one) without them ever having been mentioned in the platform of a political party or during the course of a person's campaign for office. What happens then? The junta has already responded to economic issues for rubber farmers in the south and for other farmers in Rayong and Chantaburi and provided subsidies and relief. These may be labeled populist policies but they're ok in my book. Policies that respond to natural disasters or force majeures could also be regarded as populist. Remember the coupons doled out to flood victims a few years ago? I can't speak for other countries but in in the US, bills that require government expenditures are required to be submitted to the Government Accounting Office for an estimate of funding that will be required, etc. These are estimates and the assumptions may change over time due to changing economic conditions but it does provide for a modicum of transparency. The way things are shaping up, Parliament will not have much in in the way of acting on any legislation and MPs will not have much power much at all.

Edited July 11, 2014 by pookiki

[rubl]

Without a clear definition of terms, this seems nothing more than an attempt to micromanage political parties. In addition, what may be considered populist policies could be introduced in Parliament (if there is another one) without them ever having been mentioned in the platform of a political party or during the course of a person's campaign for office. What happens then? The junta has already responded to economic issues for rubber farmers in the south and for other farmers in Rayong and Chantaburi and provided subsidies and relief. These may be labeled populist policies but they're ok in my book. Policies that respond to natural disasters or force majeures could also be regarded as populist. Remember the coupons doled out to flood victims a few years ago? I can't speak for other countries but in in the US, bills that require government expenditures are required to be submitted to the Government Accounting Office for an estimate of funding that will be required, etc. These are estimates and the assumptions may change over time due to changing economic conditions but it does provide for a modicum of transparency. The way things are shaping up, Parliament will not have much in in the way of acting on any legislation and MPs will not have much power much at all.

Junta left, junta right, but we have NACC and EC here.

Of course anything between black and white is difficult, but a certain level of screening, or requirement to have a rather sound financing plan (even with planned deficits) seems a better alternative than having a party doing vote buying through irresponsible and impossible 'election' promises and using a parliamentary majority to push through those self-serving policies ignoring or even obstructing the opposition in doing it's appointed job.

A recent example would be the 700++ billion 'mislayed' in 2-1/2 years in only the RPPS, with farmers still poor. Allegedly that is, the poor farmers that is.

Edited July 11, 2014 by rubl

[pookiki]

Without a clear definition of terms, this seems nothing more than an attempt to micromanage political parties. In addition, what may be considered populist policies could be introduced in Parliament (if there is another one) without them ever having been mentioned in the platform of a political party or during the course of a person's campaign for office. What happens then? The junta has already responded to economic issues for rubber farmers in the south and for other farmers in Rayong and Chantaburi and provided subsidies and relief. These may be labeled populist policies but they're ok in my book. Policies that respond to natural disasters or force majeures could also be regarded as populist. Remember the coupons doled out to flood victims a few years ago? I can't speak for other countries but in in the US, bills that require government expenditures are required to be submitted to the Government Accounting Office for an estimate of funding that will be required, etc. These are estimates and the assumptions may change over time due to changing economic conditions but it does provide for a modicum of transparency. The way things are shaping up, Parliament will not have much in in the way of acting on any legislation and MPs will not have much power much at all.

Junta left, junta right, but we have NACC and EC here.

Of course anything between black and white is difficult, but a certain level of screening, or requirement to have a rather sound financing plan (even with planned deficits) seems a better alternative than having a party doing vote buying through irresponsible and impossible 'election' promises and using a parliamentary majority to push through those self-serving policies ignoring or even obstructing the opposition in doing it's appointed job.

A recent example would be the 700++ billion 'mislayed' in 2-1/2 years in only the RPPS, with farmers still poor. Allegedly that is, the poor farmers that is.

What if a party's platform just says they will provide subsidies to farmers to help them better their standard of living without any specifics? Is the NACC and the EC going to demand that they quantify their platform? Usually, party platforms are long on programs to be enacted and short on specifics. If the party says they are going to do this and that, are they going to have to submit a budget to the NACC to illustrate how they will fund their projects? So many things in government are done ad hoc and without planning. Maybe the farmers are still poor but they got their checks based on the amount of rice they pledged - right? The price they got was a good one. What do you suggest to improve the standard of living for farmers? Subsidies/price supports are pretty much the way things are done in other countries. In Thailand, I think issue of poverty among farmers is more linked to patterns of land ownership. Maybe land reform is the way to go?

[pookiki]

Without a clear definition of terms, this seems nothing more than an attempt to micromanage political parties. In addition, what may be considered populist policies could be introduced in Parliament (if there is another one) without them ever having been mentioned in the platform of a political party or during the course of a person's campaign for office. What happens then? The junta has already responded to economic issues for rubber farmers in the south and for other farmers in Rayong and Chantaburi and provided subsidies and relief. These may be labeled populist policies but they're ok in my book. Policies that respond to natural disasters or force majeures could also be regarded as populist. Remember the coupons doled out to flood victims a few years ago? I can't speak for other countries but in in the US, bills that require government expenditures are required to be submitted to the Government Accounting Office for an estimate of funding that will be required, etc. These are estimates and the assumptions may change over time due to changing economic conditions but it does provide for a modicum of transparency. The way things are shaping up, Parliament will not have much in in the way of acting on any legislation and MPs will not have much power much at all.

Junta left, junta right, but we have NACC and EC here.

Of course anything between black and white is difficult, but a certain level of screening, or requirement to have a rather sound financing plan (even with planned deficits) seems a better alternative than having a party doing vote buying through irresponsible and impossible 'election' promises and using a parliamentary majority to push through those self-serving policies ignoring or even obstructing the opposition in doing it's appointed job.

A recent example would be the 700++ billion 'mislayed' in 2-1/2 years in only the RPPS, with farmers still poor. Allegedly that is, the poor farmers that is.

What if a party's platform just says they will provide subsidies to farmers to help them better their standard of living without any specifics? Is the NACC and the EC going to demand that they quantify their platform? Usually, party platforms are long on programs to be enacted and short on specifics. If the party says they are going to do this and that, are they going to have to submit a budget to the NACC to illustrate how they will fund their projects? So many things in government are done ad hoc and without planning. Maybe the farmers are still poor but they got their checks based on the amount of rice they pledged - right? The price they got was a good one. What do you suggest to improve the standard of living for farmers? Subsidies/price supports are pretty much the way things are done in other countries. In Thailand, I think issue of poverty among farmers is more linked to patterns of land ownership. Maybe land reform is the way to go?

[rubl]

Without a clear definition of terms, this seems nothing more than an attempt to micromanage political parties. In addition, what may be considered populist policies could be introduced in Parliament (if there is another one) without them ever having been mentioned in the platform of a political party or during the course of a person's campaign for office. What happens then? The junta has already responded to economic issues for rubber farmers in the south and for other farmers in Rayong and Chantaburi and provided subsidies and relief. These may be labeled populist policies but they're ok in my book. Policies that respond to natural disasters or force majeures could also be regarded as populist. Remember the coupons doled out to flood victims a few years ago? I can't speak for other countries but in in the US, bills that require government expenditures are required to be submitted to the Government Accounting Office for an estimate of funding that will be required, etc. These are estimates and the assumptions may change over time due to changing economic conditions but it does provide for a modicum of transparency. The way things are shaping up, Parliament will not have much in in the way of acting on any legislation and MPs will not have much power much at all.

Junta left, junta right, but we have NACC and EC here.

Of course anything between black and white is difficult, but a certain level of screening, or requirement to have a rather sound financing plan (even with planned deficits) seems a better alternative than having a party doing vote buying through irresponsible and impossible 'election' promises and using a parliamentary majority to push through those self-serving policies ignoring or even obstructing the opposition in doing it's appointed job.

A recent example would be the 700++ billion 'mislayed' in 2-1/2 years in only the RPPS, with farmers still poor. Allegedly that is, the poor farmers that is.

What if a party's platform just says they will provide subsidies to farmers to help them better their standard of living without any specifics? Is the NACC and the EC going to demand that they quantify their platform? Usually, party platforms are long on programs to be enacted and short on specifics. If the party says they are going to do this and that, are they going to have to submit a budget to the NACC to illustrate how they will fund their projects? So many things in government are done ad hoc and without planning. Maybe the farmers are still poor but they got their checks based on the amount of rice they pledged - right? The price they got was a good one. What do you suggest to improve the standard of living for farmers? Subsidies/price supports are pretty much the way things are done in other countries. In Thailand, I think issue of poverty among farmers is more linked to patterns of land ownership. Maybe land reform is the way to go?

What if ? Answer: don't know. The many shades of grey make this a difficult to implement proposal.

Mind you, with the move from direct vote buying to indirect, but still clear vote buying and a population susceptible to vote buying in any form, it's no surprise either NACC or EC feels something needs to be done.

Clearly an issue which needs to be addressed, but needs more discussion to find an acceptable way to address it.

May I suggest the NCPO stays on till each and every one of such issues is resolved to the satisfaction of (most) Thais ?

Edited July 11, 2014 by rubl

[lostsoul49]

Without a clear definition of terms, this seems nothing more than an attempt to micromanage political parties. In addition, what may be considered populist policies could be introduced in Parliament (if there is another one) without them ever having been mentioned in the platform of a political party or during the course of a person's campaign for office. What happens then? The junta has already responded to economic issues for rubber farmers in the south and for other farmers in Rayong and Chantaburi and provided subsidies and relief. These may be labeled populist policies but they're ok in my book. Policies that respond to natural disasters or force majeures could also be regarded as populist. Remember the coupons doled out to flood victims a few years ago? I can't speak for other countries but in in the US, bills that require government expenditures are required to be submitted to the Government Accounting Office for an estimate of funding that will be required, etc. These are estimates and the assumptions may change over time due to changing economic conditions but it does provide for a modicum of transparency. The way things are shaping up, Parliament will not have much in in the way of acting on any legislation and MPs will not have much power much at all.

Junta left, junta right, but we have NACC and EC here.

Of course anything between black and white is difficult, but a certain level of screening, or requirement to have a rather sound financing plan (even with planned deficits) seems a better alternative than having a party doing vote buying through irresponsible and impossible 'election' promises and using a parliamentary majority to push through those self-serving policies ignoring or even obstructing the opposition in doing it's appointed job.

A recent example would be the 700++ billion 'mislayed' in 2-1/2 years in only the RPPS, with farmers still poor. Allegedly that is, the poor farmers that is.

What if a party's platform just says they will provide subsidies to farmers to help them better their standard of living without any specifics? Is the NACC and the EC going to demand that they quantify their platform? Usually, party platforms are long on programs to be enacted and short on specifics. If the party says they are going to do this and that, are they going to have to submit a budget to the NACC to illustrate how they will fund their projects? So many things in government are done ad hoc and without planning. Maybe the farmers are still poor but they got their checks based on the amount of rice they pledged - right? The price they got was a good one. What do you suggest to improve the standard of living for farmers? Subsidies/price supports are pretty much the way things are done in other countries. In Thailand, I think issue of poverty among farmers is more linked to patterns of land ownership. Maybe land reform is the way to go?

You didn't read the OP correctly.

It states that you can't just come out with a general unspecified promise... You have to have in depth and specific details, and these have to be scrutinized in detail before you can stand up and promise anything.

Populism is on the way out and it was the only way Thaksin could back a party.

He is FINISHED!

[onlycw]

Oh - they don't even have an e-mail address on their website! Or a phone number for English speaking staff.

How disappointing!

Edited July 13, 2014 by metisdead
Font reset to default forum font.

[robblok]

@pookiki

You yourself state they have something like that in the USA, I myself know they have something similar in the Netherlands. Where I come from election programs and promises are checked and calculated by an independent organisation. This way they can't sell promises they can't keep (often they can't keep them as where I come from coalition governments are the norm and a lot of negotiating is done).

So I assume most real Democracies have such a mechanism, why do you oppose it in Thailand.

This would have prevented the rice program and a loss of 700 billion (or allowed it if they made budget for it they did not they said it would be cost neutral or running a profit that is why they punished and threatened civil servants who made the losses known).

Basically this is a huge blow against Taksin and will make it even harder for him to come back.

Sure it limits power.. but in a sensible way. Not the Taksin way the winner can do what he wants and shafts the looser. Now the winner has to play by the rules.

[rickirs]

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

Without a clear definition of terms, this seems nothing more than an attempt to micromanage political parties. In addition, what may be considered populist policies could be introduced in Parliament (if there is another one) without them ever having been mentioned in the platform of a political party or during the course of a person's campaign for office. What happens then? The junta has already responded to economic issues for rubber farmers in the south and for other farmers in Rayong and Chantaburi and provided subsidies and relief. These may be labeled populist policies but they're ok in my book. Policies that respond to natural disasters or force majeures could also be regarded as populist. Remember the coupons doled out to flood victims a few years ago? I can't speak for other countries but in in the US, bills that require government expenditures are required to be submitted to the Government Accounting Office for an estimate of funding that will be required, etc. These are estimates and the assumptions may change over time due to changing economic conditions but it does provide for a modicum of transparency. The way things are shaping up, Parliament will not have much in in the way of acting on any legislation and MPs will not have much power much at all.

Junta left, junta right, but we have NACC and EC here.

Of course anything between black and white is difficult, but a certain level of screening, or requirement to have a rather sound financing plan (even with planned deficits) seems a better alternative than having a party doing vote buying through irresponsible and impossible 'election' promises and using a parliamentary majority to push through those self-serving policies ignoring or even obstructing the opposition in doing it's appointed job.

A recent example would be the 700++ billion 'mislayed' in 2-1/2 years in only the RPPS, with farmers still poor. Allegedly that is, the poor farmers that is.

What if a party's platform just says they will provide subsidies to farmers to help them better their standard of living without any specifics? Is the NACC and the EC going to demand that they quantify their platform? Usually, party platforms are long on programs to be enacted and short on specifics. If the party says they are going to do this and that, are they going to have to submit a budget to the NACC to illustrate how they will fund their projects? So many things in government are done ad hoc and without planning. Maybe the farmers are still poor but they got their checks based on the amount of rice they pledged - right? The price they got was a good one. What do you suggest to improve the standard of living for farmers? Subsidies/price supports are pretty much the way things are done in other countries. In Thailand, I think issue of poverty among farmers is more linked to patterns of land ownership. Maybe land reform is the way to go?

You didn't read the OP correctly.

It states that you can't just come out with a general unspecified promise... You have to have in depth and specific details, and these have to be scrutinized in detail before you can stand up and promise anything.

Populism is on the way out and it was the only way Thaksin could back a party.

He is FINISHED!

Thaksin didn't invent populism. The Junta itself has within a mere two months of power itself used populist policies, even as minor as holding public concerts and free movies to enhance people's happiness.

Throughout the history of civilizations populism has been typically used as an economic tool of the elite and wealthy ruling classes to keep the general population under its control. In exchange for the general population or specific sectors of society giving up certain freedoms it receives limited benefits. In some aspects populism is "subsidized freedom." Populism can also provide a public benefit for the general good of society such as disaster and famine relief without any expectation of political payback; but given human nature, people do appreciate a supportive government and may be inclined to vote for that government should such programs not be attached to corruption or irresponsible spending.

[rubl]

Thaksin didn't invent populism. The Junta itself has within a mere two months of power itself used populist policies, even as minor as holding public concerts and free movies to enhance people's happiness.

Throughout the history of civilizations populism has been typically used as an economic tool of the elite and wealthy ruling classes to keep the general population under its control. In exchange for the general population or specific sectors of society giving up certain freedoms it receives limited benefits. In some aspects populism is "subsidized freedom." Populism can also provide a public benefit for the general good of society such as disaster and famine relief without any expectation of political payback; but given human nature, people do appreciate a supportive government and may be inclined to vote for that government should such programs not be attached to corruption or irresponsible spending.

Thaksin indeed didn't invent corruption, he just managed to improve on it it would seem.

Anyway a part of the Thai population for various reasons is inclined to vote for a political party even if it's programs are attached to corruption and/or irresponsible spending. That's indirect vote buying which gets us back to the OP.

Strictly speaking only minimal checks should be necessary in the election law, It would seem first major reforms and a new generation of properly educated Thai is required to get to that. When I say properly educated I mean more in line with Western World ideas of 'wondering' and 'questioning', the idea that in a democracy you have both rights as well as duties, etc., etc.

Maybe the NCPO should stay on just a wee bit longer to get the country on this path ?

Edited July 12, 2014 by rubl

[pookiki]

@pookiki

You yourself state they have something like that in the USA, I myself know they have something similar in the Netherlands. Where I come from election programs and promises are checked and calculated by an independent organisation. This way they can't sell promises they can't keep (often they can't keep them as where I come from coalition governments are the norm and a lot of negotiating is done).

So I assume most real Democracies have such a mechanism, why do you oppose it in Thailand.

This would have prevented the rice program and a loss of 700 billion (or allowed it if they made budget for it they did not they said it would be cost neutral or running a profit that is why they punished and threatened civil servants who made the losses known).

Basically this is a huge blow against Taksin and will make it even harder for him to come back.

Sure it limits power.. but in a sensible way. Not the Taksin way the winner can do what he wants and shafts the looser. Now the winner has to play by the rules.

It's not the same in the US as you describe. The purpose of the GAO is to determine costs of legislation introduced in Congress to the public and not to veto legislation or the stated programs/platforms of political parties. I think it is a substantial difference. Legislators have the independence to determine whether they will support the legislation or not. And there is no similar restriction is placed on party platforms. It is a matter of freedom of speech. In a representative democracy, those voted to serve are supposed to respond to the needs of their constituents. Micromanagement interferes with this responsibility, it does not enhance it. My humble opinion.

[fab4]

Without a clear definition of terms, this seems nothing more than an attempt to micromanage political parties. In addition, what may be considered populist policies could be introduced in Parliament (if there is another one) without them ever having been mentioned in the platform of a political party or during the course of a person's campaign for office. What happens then? The junta has already responded to economic issues for rubber farmers in the south and for other farmers in Rayong and Chantaburi and provided subsidies and relief. These may be labeled populist policies but they're ok in my book. Policies that respond to natural disasters or force majeures could also be regarded as populist. Remember the coupons doled out to flood victims a few years ago? I can't speak for other countries but in in the US, bills that require government expenditures are required to be submitted to the Government Accounting Office for an estimate of funding that will be required, etc. These are estimates and the assumptions may change over time due to changing economic conditions but it does provide for a modicum of transparency. The way things are shaping up, Parliament will not have much in in the way of acting on any legislation and MPs will not have much power much at all.

Junta left, junta right, but we have NACC and EC here.

Of course anything between black and white is difficult, but a certain level of screening, or requirement to have a rather sound financing plan (even with planned deficits) seems a better alternative than having a party doing vote buying through irresponsible and impossible 'election' promises and using a parliamentary majority to push through those self-serving policies ignoring or even obstructing the opposition in doing it's appointed job.

A recent example would be the 700++ billion 'mislayed' in 2-1/2 years in only the RPPS, with farmers still poor. Allegedly that is, the poor farmers that is.

When you allude to 700++ billion "mislaid", do you mean that the previous government lost all that money and have no idea where it went? A curious idea, but to be expected.

[arjunadawn]

Without a clear definition of terms, this seems nothing more than an attempt to micromanage political parties. In addition, what may be considered populist policies could be introduced in Parliament (if there is another one) without them ever having been mentioned in the platform of a political party or during the course of a person's campaign for office. What happens then? The junta has already responded to economic issues for rubber farmers in the south and for other farmers in Rayong and Chantaburi and provided subsidies and relief. These may be labeled populist policies but they're ok in my book. Policies that respond to natural disasters or force majeures could also be regarded as populist. Remember the coupons doled out to flood victims a few years ago? I can't speak for other countries but in in the US, bills that require government expenditures are required to be submitted to the Government Accounting Office for an estimate of funding that will be required, etc. These are estimates and the assumptions may change over time due to changing economic conditions but it does provide for a modicum of transparency. The way things are shaping up, Parliament will not have much in in the way of acting on any legislation and MPs will not have much power much at all.

Perhaps I misunderstood (or you did :-)). I inferred the aim was to limit the populist offers by politicians actually shaping the election, and later requiring the State foolhardy debts or obligations. One if the frequent criticisms I have a absolute democracy is the fear of mob rule. Indeed, smarter people than me have suggested this is what screwed Athens, arguably the first Democracy. In the USA they can (for a time) delude the citizens with wild, populist, 'chicken in every pot" schemes because the petrol dollar enables considerable debt- $17 trillion now!

Thailand doesn't have the ability to sustain that illusion and the consequences of policies, such as Obama-like Thaskin car and rice schemes, act fast and surely on a small economy. Was a politician to attain office, proffer a populist idea, have it approved and implemented, then this is most different. What's being considered, I believe, is stoping the 51% of any emotive election from disempowering the 49%, injuring the economic fabric! or otherwise destabilizing Thailand- based solely on promises that empower some at the expense of others.

I think it is brilliant, though I'm unsure how you do this. Perhaps constitutionally mandating that... What? How do you really do this while maintaining an air of freedom? I like it. Unsure how to do it.

[robblok]

@pookiki

You yourself state they have something like that in the USA, I myself know they have something similar in the Netherlands. Where I come from election programs and promises are checked and calculated by an independent organisation. This way they can't sell promises they can't keep (often they can't keep them as where I come from coalition governments are the norm and a lot of negotiating is done).

So I assume most real Democracies have such a mechanism, why do you oppose it in Thailand.

This would have prevented the rice program and a loss of 700 billion (or allowed it if they made budget for it they did not they said it would be cost neutral or running a profit that is why they punished and threatened civil servants who made the losses known).

Basically this is a huge blow against Taksin and will make it even harder for him to come back.

Sure it limits power.. but in a sensible way. Not the Taksin way the winner can do what he wants and shafts the looser. Now the winner has to play by the rules.

It's not the same in the US as you describe. The purpose of the GAO is to determine costs of legislation introduced in Congress to the public and not to veto legislation or the stated programs/platforms of political parties. I think it is a substantial difference. Legislators have the independence to determine whether they will support the legislation or not. And there is no similar restriction is placed on party platforms. It is a matter of freedom of speech. In a representative democracy, those voted to serve are supposed to respond to the needs of their constituents. Micromanagement interferes with this responsibility, it does not enhance it. My humble opinion.

They only veto if the costs are not accounted good into budget, seems normal too me. Else you can promise the moon in your program. It just stops people selling things they can't deliver.

Seems real sensible to me and also sensible to veto programs that are not sensible. Same happens in the Netherlands if the program is not sound they have to amend it.

I call that checks and balances and with it the rice scam would never have cost Thailand billion baht that was not budgeted.

[pookiki]

To properly discuss this issue, there needs to be 'some' agreement on what is considered populist. The dictionary definition says it 'relates to programs to support ordinary people'. Is that a definition that is acceptable? In the EU, many of the forms of government are referred to as social democratic. A lot of laws, tax laws in particular, are designed to redistribute income to provide more equality in income. Most countries also have universal healthcare laws, good retirement benefits, extremely good laws that protect workers, and laws that provide good benefits in terms of long vacations, sick leave, temporary disability, maternity leave, etc. Many provide free tuition for higher education. When I see these type of populist policies, I am in awe.

Would the introduction of such measures to enhance the standard of living in Thailand be wrong? Would they damage the country? Unfortunately, every measure being considered is being examined in a crucible for 'potential' corruption. No matter how well intended laws are, there is always the potential for corruption. It's human nature. There will always be a bad side to a good side. The NACC can't legislate morality. No one can.

[rubl]

Junta left, junta right, but we have NACC and EC here.

Of course anything between black and white is difficult, but a certain level of screening, or requirement to have a rather sound financing plan (even with planned deficits) seems a better alternative than having a party doing vote buying through irresponsible and impossible 'election' promises and using a parliamentary majority to push through those self-serving policies ignoring or even obstructing the opposition in doing it's appointed job.

A recent example would be the 700++ billion 'mislayed' in 2-1/2 years in only the RPPS, with farmers still poor. Allegedly that is, the poor farmers that is.

When you allude to 700++ billion "mislaid", do you mean that the previous government lost all that money and have no idea where it went? A curious idea, but to be expected.

Well, if I write 700++ billion lost due to corruption taken care of by Ms. Yingluck's administration you'll ask for tangible facts and a bag of rice to go with it.

Anyway that was just an example, to illustrate that 'vote buying' has changed in approach requiring different ways to tackle it. The proposal seems a bit overdone, but to wait for a properly educated Thai population and electorate might require the NCPO to stay a wee bit longer than most posters here would want them. All for the good of Thailand of course.

Edited July 12, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

To properly discuss this issue, there needs to be 'some' agreement on what is considered populist. The dictionary definition says it 'relates to programs to support ordinary people'. Is that a definition that is acceptable? In the EU, many of the forms of government are referred to as social democratic. A lot of laws, tax laws in particular, are designed to redistribute income to provide more equality in income. Most countries also have universal healthcare laws, good retirement benefits, extremely good laws that protect workers, and laws that provide good benefits in terms of long vacations, sick leave, temporary disability, maternity leave, etc. Many provide free tuition for higher education. When I see these type of populist policies, I am in awe.

Would the introduction of such measures to enhance the standard of living in Thailand be wrong? Would they damage the country? Unfortunately, every measure being considered is being examined in a crucible for 'potential' corruption. No matter how well intended laws are, there is always the potential for corruption. It's human nature. There will always be a bad side to a good side. The NACC can't legislate morality. No one can.

THe NACC isn't even trying to legislate.

"Sansern said the NACC would propose to the EC, which has direct responsibility for organising elections, that it issue regulations and check the feasibility of campaign policies of all parties before allowing them to be advertised."

[robblok]

To properly discuss this issue, there needs to be 'some' agreement on what is considered populist. The dictionary definition says it 'relates to programs to support ordinary people'. Is that a definition that is acceptable? In the EU, many of the forms of government are referred to as social democratic. A lot of laws, tax laws in particular, are designed to redistribute income to provide more equality in income. Most countries also have universal healthcare laws, good retirement benefits, extremely good laws that protect workers, and laws that provide good benefits in terms of long vacations, sick leave, temporary disability, maternity leave, etc. Many provide free tuition for higher education. When I see these type of populist policies, I am in awe.

Would the introduction of such measures to enhance the standard of living in Thailand be wrong? Would they damage the country? Unfortunately, every measure being considered is being examined in a crucible for 'potential' corruption. No matter how well intended laws are, there is always the potential for corruption. It's human nature. There will always be a bad side to a good side. The NACC can't legislate morality. No one can.

Its not so bad if it is properly budgeted and within certain limits. If its an obvious vote buyer without budget (rice program) then of course it will have to be vetoed. Problem is of course the gray area.

I don't have a problem with helping people I do have a problem with things that are not fiscal prudent. But I do agree its hard to make distinction.

I am more for checking a total budget to see if what you promise can be done from the current budget or that you have to increase taxes (you have to mention that in your program then) to finance it. But the best example of what went wrong was the rice program that was budgetted as cost neutral or a profit while everyone said it could not be done. This would have been stopped there.

The tablets would not have been stopped even though you might not agree about it as long as it stays within budget its ok. Same goes for diesel subsidies ect as long as you make a realistic budget for it im ok. Problem starts when your budget is not sufficient.

[robblok]

To properly discuss this issue, there needs to be 'some' agreement on what is considered populist. The dictionary definition says it 'relates to programs to support ordinary people'. Is that a definition that is acceptable? In the EU, many of the forms of government are referred to as social democratic. A lot of laws, tax laws in particular, are designed to redistribute income to provide more equality in income. Most countries also have universal healthcare laws, good retirement benefits, extremely good laws that protect workers, and laws that provide good benefits in terms of long vacations, sick leave, temporary disability, maternity leave, etc. Many provide free tuition for higher education. When I see these type of populist policies, I am in awe.

Would the introduction of such measures to enhance the standard of living in Thailand be wrong? Would they damage the country? Unfortunately, every measure being considered is being examined in a crucible for 'potential' corruption. No matter how well intended laws are, there is always the potential for corruption. It's human nature. There will always be a bad side to a good side. The NACC can't legislate morality. No one can.

THe NACC isn't even trying to legislate.

"Sansern said the NACC would propose to the EC, which has direct responsibility for organising elections, that it issue regulations and check the feasibility of campaign policies of all parties before allowing them to be advertised."

That is exactly what I am saying.. just calculate if it can be done with the budget available. Now they had that rice scam in books for 0. Had they had to budget it for 350 billion bt they had to cut somewhere else making them not popular but fiscal sound.

Now they promised things not possible with the budget.

[pookiki]

To properly discuss this issue, there needs to be 'some' agreement on what is considered populist. The dictionary definition says it 'relates to programs to support ordinary people'. Is that a definition that is acceptable? In the EU, many of the forms of government are referred to as social democratic. A lot of laws, tax laws in particular, are designed to redistribute income to provide more equality in income. Most countries also have universal healthcare laws, good retirement benefits, extremely good laws that protect workers, and laws that provide good benefits in terms of long vacations, sick leave, temporary disability, maternity leave, etc. Many provide free tuition for higher education. When I see these type of populist policies, I am in awe.

Would the introduction of such measures to enhance the standard of living in Thailand be wrong? Would they damage the country? Unfortunately, every measure being considered is being examined in a crucible for 'potential' corruption. No matter how well intended laws are, there is always the potential for corruption. It's human nature. There will always be a bad side to a good side. The NACC can't legislate morality. No one can.

THe NACC isn't even trying to legislate.

"Sansern said the NACC would propose to the EC, which has direct responsibility for organising elections, that it issue regulations and check the feasibility of campaign policies of all parties before allowing them to be advertised."

I don't think you can deny that they have veto power in this situation, right? No approval, no advertisement. And if they party would try to introduce the same legislation in Parliament, It would appear to be a logical conclusion that the EC would say this was disapproved earlier and the party cannot introduce it. That's my take.

[rubl]

THe NACC isn't even trying to legislate.

"Sansern said the NACC would propose to the EC, which has direct responsibility for organising elections, that it issue regulations and check the feasibility of campaign policies of all parties before allowing them to be advertised."

I don't think you can deny that they have veto power in this situation, right? No approval, no advertisement. And if they party would try to introduce the same legislation in Parliament, It would appear to be a logical conclusion that the EC would say this was disapproved earlier and the party cannot introduce it. That's my take.

I don't think the NACC has veto power, nor the EC. If the EC had, there would be no need for the NACC to propose anything to the EC, now would there?

[robblok]

To properly discuss this issue, there needs to be 'some' agreement on what is considered populist. The dictionary definition says it 'relates to programs to support ordinary people'. Is that a definition that is acceptable? In the EU, many of the forms of government are referred to as social democratic. A lot of laws, tax laws in particular, are designed to redistribute income to provide more equality in income. Most countries also have universal healthcare laws, good retirement benefits, extremely good laws that protect workers, and laws that provide good benefits in terms of long vacations, sick leave, temporary disability, maternity leave, etc. Many provide free tuition for higher education. When I see these type of populist policies, I am in awe.

Would the introduction of such measures to enhance the standard of living in Thailand be wrong? Would they damage the country? Unfortunately, every measure being considered is being examined in a crucible for 'potential' corruption. No matter how well intended laws are, there is always the potential for corruption. It's human nature. There will always be a bad side to a good side. The NACC can't legislate morality. No one can.

THe NACC isn't even trying to legislate.

"Sansern said the NACC would propose to the EC, which has direct responsibility for organising elections, that it issue regulations and check the feasibility of campaign policies of all parties before allowing them to be advertised."

I don't think you can deny that they have veto power in this situation, right? No approval, no advertisement. And if they party would try to introduce the same legislation in Parliament, It would appear to be a logical conclusion that the EC would say this was disapproved earlier and the party cannot introduce it. That's my take.

Veto is dangerous but needed.

If you don't have teeth they can just ignore the fact that their election promises are not sound of budget and cannot be done.

[pookiki]

THe NACC isn't even trying to legislate.

"Sansern said the NACC would propose to the EC, which has direct responsibility for organising elections, that it issue regulations and check the feasibility of campaign policies of all parties before allowing them to be advertised."

I don't think you can deny that they have veto power in this situation, right? No approval, no advertisement. And if they party would try to introduce the same legislation in Parliament, It would appear to be a logical conclusion that the EC would say this was disapproved earlier and the party cannot introduce it. That's my take.

I don't think the NACC has veto power, nor the EC. If the EC had, there would be no need for the NACC to propose anything to the EC, now would there?

Too many spoons (and acronyms) in the soup if you ask me. And it's really all conjecture without being able to see the interim and final draft constitution.

[fab4]

Junta left, junta right, but we have NACC and EC here.

Of course anything between black and white is difficult, but a certain level of screening, or requirement to have a rather sound financing plan (even with planned deficits) seems a better alternative than having a party doing vote buying through irresponsible and impossible 'election' promises and using a parliamentary majority to push through those self-serving policies ignoring or even obstructing the opposition in doing it's appointed job.

A recent example would be the 700++ billion 'mislayed' in 2-1/2 years in only the RPPS, with farmers still poor. Allegedly that is, the poor farmers that is.

When you allude to 700++ billion "mislaid", do you mean that the previous government lost all that money and have no idea where it went? A curious idea, but to be expected.

Well, if I write 700++ billion lost due to corruption taken care of by Ms. Yingluck's administration you'll ask for tangible facts and a bag of rice to go with it.

Anyway that was just an example, to illustrate that 'vote buying' has changed in approach requiring different ways to tackle it. The proposal seems a bit overdone, but to wait for a properly educated Thai population and electorate might require the NCPO to stay a wee bit longer than most posters here would want them. All for the good of Thailand of course.

You're right about what my reaction would be (apart from requesting a bag of rice) but I am just a bit concerned about what you regard as a "properly educated Thai population and electorate". Too close to what the junta PsyOps bunch would come up with for my taste - perhaps you think that is a perfectly normal statement to make?

[scorecard]

Somewhere in this discussion there should be, IMHO, a requirement that party policy is aimed mostly at the longer-term rather than 'in the hand today' stuff.

Examples:

- Policies which directly or indirectly force a big reduction in the income gap.

- Policies which directly or indirectly share the wealth. Simple example: highly subsidized fares on the BTS / MRT etc., rather than the current fare system. (Full user pays approach is of course more appropriate in strong first world economies.)

- Policies which will create the wherewithal for a much much larger percentage of all Thais to have a good quality of life from their own productivity.

All with laws that the EC or whoever must monitor progress on declared policies, and if they are not fully implemented and bearing the stated results very heavy fines, maybe even jail time.

[sawadee1947]

how populist policy could damage a real democracy...????

[rubl]

When you allude to 700++ billion "mislaid", do you mean that the previous government lost all that money and have no idea where it went? A curious idea, but to be expected.

Well, if I write 700++ billion lost due to corruption taken care of by Ms. Yingluck's administration you'll ask for tangible facts and a bag of rice to go with it.

Anyway that was just an example, to illustrate that 'vote buying' has changed in approach requiring different ways to tackle it. The proposal seems a bit overdone, but to wait for a properly educated Thai population and electorate might require the NCPO to stay a wee bit longer than most posters here would want them. All for the good of Thailand of course.

You're right about what my reaction would be (apart from requesting a bag of rice) but I am just a bit concerned about what you regard as a "properly educated Thai population and electorate". Too close to what the junta PsyOps bunch would come up with for my taste - perhaps you think that is a perfectly normal statement to make?

Would you rather have me quote the UDD Ms. Thida and Dr. weng with their red schools for democracy to properly educate the Thai population and electorate?

BTW in another topic I made the suggestion that maybe the UN should take over to ensure the proper education of the Thai population. Only for 15 years, to have a bright, new start with those now in kindergarten.

Edited July 12, 2014 by rubl