Anti-graft body wants EC to review populist policies

[billd766]

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?

Why not? If you expect the country and the taxpayers to foot the bill why don't/can't you tell them that for example, to subsidise farmers will cost EVERY taxpayer in the country xxxxxxx baht per year and because you are subsidising it the cost will rise also and you will HAVE to pay more for the product.

Do you think that party would be elected if they told the truth?

What should happen is that if a policy such as the rice scheme costs far more than the budget the party proposing it should pay the difference from their own party funds and not expect the taxpayers to foot the bill.

[fab4]

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.

Quote away rubl - the problem is I haven't said anything at all about the UDD "schools of democracy" whereas you have made your feelings known on what you feel is not a "properly educated Thai population and electorate" and that the junta would have to stay on to ensure that. That is what is scary.

What you said in another topic about the UN ensuring proper education is completely contradictory to what you state above and therefore is of no relevance.

[billd766]

@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.

Freedom of speech is great if you don't have to pay the bills. OPM (other peoples money) is the best finance way in the world. If you lose it costs you nothing.

[rubl]

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.

Quote away rubl - the problem is I haven't said anything at all about the UDD "schools of democracy" whereas you have made your feelings known on what you feel is not a "properly educated Thai population and electorate" and that the junta would have to stay on to ensure that. That is what is scary.

What you said in another topic about the UN ensuring proper education is completely contradictory to what you state above and therefore is of no relevance.

My mistake, I thought you properly educated.

You still assume or even accuse me that my ideas on 'proper education' are identical to what you think the Junta's ideas are. Now if you forget about your preconceived ideas and accept I'm talking about proper, Western World style like education with 'wondering', 'questioning', 'thinking for yourself' and so on, my remark on the UN is no longer contradictory.

[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?

Why not? If you expect the country and the taxpayers to foot the bill why don't/can't you tell them that for example, to subsidise farmers will cost EVERY taxpayer in the country xxxxxxx baht per year and because you are subsidising it the cost will rise also and you will HAVE to pay more for the product.

Do you think that party would be elected if they told the truth?

What should happen is that if a policy such as the rice scheme costs far more than the budget the party proposing it should pay the difference from their own party funds and not expect the taxpayers to foot the bill.

The article states as follows:

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.

As wriiten, it is a pretty broad mandate. Say, for instance, a party proposes to provide a subsidy to rice farmers and proposes that the program be funded with an additional "x" percent tax on automobiles that cost more than 4 million baht. (Or other such additional taxes on luxury items.) Based on the research the party presents to the EC on the sale of automobiles in the previous year in excess of 4 million baht, the additional tax will generate enough money to fund the subsidy. In your estimation, is the research and the information presented sufficient to show feasibility?

[rubl]

Review populist policies? More like 'no need for populist policies'.

In another topic I was told that you can live well on small amounts of money if you choose to be carefully. By an American expect it seems. So, what are we bothered about here?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/741972-low-income-earners-unable-to-make-ends-meet-on-300-baht-minimum-wage/page-6#entry8090959

[robblok]

The article states as follows:

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.

As wriiten, it is a pretty broad mandate. Say, for instance, a party proposes to provide a subsidy to rice farmers and proposes that the program be funded with an additional "x" percent tax on automobiles that cost more than 4 million baht. (Or other such additional taxes on luxury items.) Based on the research the party presents to the EC on the sale of automobiles in the previous year in excess of 4 million baht, the additional tax will generate enough money to fund the subsidy. In your estimation, is the research and the information presented sufficient to show feasibility?

Yes it would, if they take into account a drop in sales on those cars too. What is so wrong of not allowing false promises and preventing doing what they did with the rice scheme..saying its cost neutral while it cost 700 billion (maybe more even). That was vote buying based on false promises.

[jayboy]

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 ?

So indirect vote buying in your opinion amounts to governments delivering on campaign promises.Bu this measure every democratically elected government in the world is guilty of vote buying.

The British NHS is a clear populist institution catering to the uneducated masses.Suggest the British army launch a coup supported by " good" people to bring the country to its senses.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[rubl]

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 ?

So indirect vote buying in your opinion amounts to governments delivering on campaign promises.Bu this measure every democratically elected government in the world is guilty of vote buying.

The British NHS is a clear populist institution catering to the uneducated masses.Suggest the British army launch a coup supported by " good" people to bring the country to its senses.

No.

It would seem you missed I wrote in an earlier post 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."

BTW if the British Army needs help, we Dutch are willing to donate another William of Orange

[wandasloan]

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!

That's the plan. This one is full of consequences that seem unintended. It is also the end of the Democrat Party. In other countries, it would end both US parties, and all three British parties and both Australian parties. The only question is whether this is a stone-cold proposal to end political parties in Thailand, or a really stupid attempt to only run Thaksinomics out of town. If Thaksin's party can't propose a populist measure (we will stop the Bangkok floods, we will have better disaster planning, we will ensure that tourists are better cared for, we will implement measures to show farmers they truly are the backbone of the nation) then for darned sure the Democrats won't be able to.

I am hoping this is a stupid idea that will die the usual death. If it's a serious plan, this alone could cause the next riots. At least everyone who likes politics and freedom of speech would all be on the same side this time.

.

[pookiki]

The article states as follows:

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.

As wriiten, it is a pretty broad mandate. Say, for instance, a party proposes to provide a subsidy to rice farmers and proposes that the program be funded with an additional "x" percent tax on automobiles that cost more than 4 million baht. (Or other such additional taxes on luxury items.) Based on the research the party presents to the EC on the sale of automobiles in the previous year in excess of 4 million baht, the additional tax will generate enough money to fund the subsidy. In your estimation, is the research and the information presented sufficient to show feasibility?

Yes it would, if they take into account a drop in sales on those cars too. What is so wrong of not allowing false promises and preventing doing what they did with the rice scheme..saying its cost neutral while it cost 700 billion (maybe more even). That was vote buying based on false promises.

At least I am getting a firm grasp on the concept. But I'm still not sure how this is carried out in reality. In the US, legislation that is initially introduced goes through so many iterations, amendments, riders, compromises in conference committees, that the original legislation looks nothing like the bill that was originally introduced. In addition, if the party making the promises turns out to be the opposition party, then the dynamics are affected as well. Since there has been numerous references about the system in the Netherlands in this thread, I was wondering if there have been any studies on how the restrictions on promises made during campaigns is actually related to legislation that is passed in Parliament. Is there a real connection or does it just give people a false sense of security?

Edited July 12, 2014 by pookiki

[jayboy]

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 ?

So indirect vote buying in your opinion amounts to governments delivering on campaign promises.Bu this measure every democratically elected government in the world is guilty of vote buying.

The British NHS is a clear populist institution catering to the uneducated masses.Suggest the British army launch a coup supported by " good" people to bring the country to its senses.

No.

It would seem you missed I wrote in an earlier post 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."

BTW if the British Army needs help, we Dutch are willing to donate another William of Orange

I missed your earlier comment but to be honest I am a much more infrequent visitor to this site now.The weight of stupidity, moral cowardice and quisling activity (with a few honourable exceptions) makes my stomach turn.

Still I don't think any kind of screening is appropriate by a non-parliamentary body.You are right of course to point out that political parties programmes (including the defence budget) should be costed out and their implications understood.These details need to be spelled out by each party in a manifesto.The political campaign would see debate between the parties.

[pookiki]

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!

That's the plan. This one is full of consequences that seem unintended. It is also the end of the Democrat Party. In other countries, it would end both US parties, and all three British parties and both Australian parties. The only question is whether this is a stone-cold proposal to end political parties in Thailand, or a really stupid attempt to only run Thaksinomics out of town. If Thaksin's party can't propose a populist measure (we will stop the Bangkok floods, we will have better disaster planning, we will ensure that tourists are better cared for, we will implement measures to show farmers they truly are the backbone of the nation) then for darned sure the Democrats won't be able to.

I am hoping this is a stupid idea that will die the usual death. If it's a serious plan, this alone could cause the next riots. At least everyone who likes politics and freedom of speech would all be on the same side this time.

.

It's quite ironic that in the US for a political party to follow through on campaign promises would be looked upon as something to be emulated and an indicator of integrity. The mechanics of follow through are so murky that feasibility studies would be an exercise in futility.

[rubl]

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 ?

So indirect vote buying in your opinion amounts to governments delivering on campaign promises.Bu this measure every democratically elected government in the world is guilty of vote buying.

The British NHS is a clear populist institution catering to the uneducated masses.Suggest the British army launch a coup supported by " good" people to bring the country to its senses.

No.

It would seem you missed I wrote in an earlier post 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."

BTW if the British Army needs help, we Dutch are willing to donate another William of Orange

I missed your earlier comment but to be honest I am a much more infrequent visitor to this site now.The weight of stupidity, moral cowardice and quisling activity (with a few honourable exceptions) makes my stomach turn.

Still I don't think any kind of screening is appropriate by a non-parliamentary body.You are right of course to point out that political parties programmes (including the defence budget) should be costed out and their implications understood.These details need to be spelled out by each party in a manifesto.The political campaign would see debate between the parties.

It's a difficult issue. In a functioning democratic system you wouldn't impose these type of pre-conditions as it would be deemed normal a political party already had done their homework and found an acceptable way to implement a policy. That's even apart from some watering down after discussions in parliament after a new government would have been formed.

Thailand is nowhere near such a functioning system. The possibility of an NCPO forcing certain changes may allow to leapfrog a decade, but only if there's enough Thai (and non-political) input and a wee bit of friendly pushing from international bodies.

IMHO of course

[wandasloan]

It's quite ironic that in the US for a political party to follow through on campaign promises would be looked upon as something to be emulated and an indicator of integrity. The mechanics of follow through are so murky that feasibility studies would be an exercise in futility.

Quite right. I had in mind the specific proposal to set up a government-sponsored national health plan, which became Obamacare. The promises in the election campaign about this would have definitely caused the dissolution of the Democratic Party, were the Thai proposal in effect there. I assume any American above age 11 would have at least one specific example such as that. And of course the minor parties - Libertarian and Green, just for example - are worse than the main parties in what they promise.

And you could say the same thing above about many countries other than the US, of course, from Argentina to Zambia, from Bangor to Bangalore.

.

[rubl]

It's quite ironic that in the US for a political party to follow through on campaign promises would be looked upon as something to be emulated and an indicator of integrity. The mechanics of follow through are so murky that feasibility studies would be an exercise in futility.

Quite right. I had in mind the specific proposal to set up a government-sponsored national health plan, which became Obamacare. The promises in the election campaign about this would have definitely caused the dissolution of the Democratic Party, were the Thai proposal in effect there. I assume any American above age 11 would have at least one specific example such as that. And of course the minor parties - Libertarian and Green, just for example - are worse than the main parties in what they promise.

And you could say the same thing above about many countries other than the US, of course, from Argentina to Zambia, from Bangor to Bangalore.

Oh come on, Wanda. Obamacare causing the Dems party to be dissolved? You must be a closeted GOP fan, or a no longer closeted one.

Anyway, this discussion is on proposals, made under Thai circumstances, valid in Thailand only, with no indication to forcefully have other countries implement the same.

Now once more, understandable under Thai circumstances, but probably unworkable. To ask for a workable situation we probably need to ask the NCPO to stay on a wee bit longer, or maybe indeed have the UN here for 15 years to educate the next generation of Thai 'democracy minded' electorate.

[wandasloan]

Oh come on, Wanda. Obamacare causing the Dems party to be dissolved? You must be a closeted GOP fan, or a no longer closeted one.

If you're not interested in the subject, why post?

I said that under the proposed Thai law, the US election debate over what became Obamacare would not be allowed and there would be sanctions taken against the Democratic Party. That *is* the result of this Thai law, to disallow promises such as the one made in 2008 by the Democratic Party.

Election promises are part of elections. Banning election promises is simply banning elections entirely, as has been done for example with the Thai senate, whose elected members are elected on personal popularity and underground bribes entirely. If that is applied to the House, the tyranny and corruption, both, will increase by magnitudes. It's not a theory or opinion, it has happened in the senate.

Anyway, this discussion is on proposals, made under Thai circumstances, valid in Thailand only, with no indication to forcefully have other countries implement the same.

Now once more, understandable under Thai circumstances, but probably unworkable. To ask for a workable situation we probably need to ask the NCPO to stay on a wee bit longer, or maybe indeed have the UN here for 15 years to educate the next generation of Thai 'democracy minded' electorate.

Freedom of speech doesn't have any borders. You sound like one of those "I'm in favour of freedom of speech but...." people. (I almost wrote a different word than "people")

The proposed idiocy by political morons of the EC may just be a trial balloon. If anyone thinks this can be a guided missile against Thaksinism (s)he is, frankly, ignorant and stupid, both. If the law states what the EC says it wants the law to state, it will be used AGAINST every politician of every stripe, constantly and pettishly, just like the stupid law on dissolution of political parties got Abhisit in the dock for weeks. This particular proposal you think ridiculously is "Thai-specific" will unite every politician, every party supporter and everyone who believes in basic human rights against.... well, you.

ITEM This is the second time you've stated something about a 15-year UN appearance in Thailand. Apart from the fact that the UN is not a colonial power and not a single Thai citizen would allow it, why do you think this has anything at all to do with this discussion except to poison it?

.

[rubl]

Oh come on, Wanda. Obamacare causing the Dems party to be dissolved? You must be a closeted GOP fan, or a no longer closeted one.

If you're not interested in the subject, why post?

I said that under the proposed Thai law, the US election debate over what became Obamacare would not be allowed and there would be sanctions taken against the Democratic Party. That *is* the result of this Thai law, to disallow promises such as the one made in 2008 by the Democratic Party.

Election promises are part of elections. Banning election promises is simply banning elections entirely, as has been done for example with the Thai senate, whose elected members are elected on personal popularity and underground bribes entirely. If that is applied to the House, the tyranny and corruption, both, will increase by magnitudes. It's not a theory or opinion, it has happened in the senate.

Anyway, this discussion is on proposals, made under Thai circumstances, valid in Thailand only, with no indication to forcefully have other countries implement the same.

Now once more, understandable under Thai circumstances, but probably unworkable. To ask for a workable situation we probably need to ask the NCPO to stay on a wee bit longer, or maybe indeed have the UN here for 15 years to educate the next generation of Thai 'democracy minded' electorate.

Freedom of speech doesn't have any borders. You sound like one of those "I'm in favour of freedom of speech but...." people. (I almost wrote a different word than "people")

The proposed idiocy by political morons of the EC may just be a trial balloon. If anyone thinks this can be a guided missile against Thaksinism (s)he is, frankly, ignorant and stupid, both. If the law states what the EC says it wants the law to state, it will be used AGAINST every politician of every stripe, constantly and pettishly, just like the stupid law on dissolution of political parties got Abhisit in the dock for weeks. This particular proposal you think ridiculously is "Thai-specific" will unite every politician, every party supporter and everyone who believes in basic human rights against.... well, you.

ITEM This is the second time you've stated something about a 15-year UN appearance in Thailand. Apart from the fact that the UN is not a colonial power and not a single Thai citizen would allow it, why do you think this has anything at all to do with this discussion except to poison it?

Why do you 'poison' this topic by referring to Obamacare in relation to a law which even in Thailand we do not have ?

For your information we are trying to discuss a proposal only from the NACC to the EC.

Edited July 12, 2014 by rubl

[pookiki]

It's quite ironic that in the US for a political party to follow through on campaign promises would be looked upon as something to be emulated and an indicator of integrity. The mechanics of follow through are so murky that feasibility studies would be an exercise in futility.

Quite right. I had in mind the specific proposal to set up a government-sponsored national health plan, which became Obamacare. The promises in the election campaign about this would have definitely caused the dissolution of the Democratic Party, were the Thai proposal in effect there. I assume any American above age 11 would have at least one specific example such as that. And of course the minor parties - Libertarian and Green, just for example - are worse than the main parties in what they promise.

And you could say the same thing above about many countries other than the US, of course, from Argentina to Zambia, from Bangor to Bangalore.

Oh come on, Wanda. Obamacare causing the Dems party to be dissolved? You must be a closeted GOP fan, or a no longer closeted one.

Anyway, this discussion is on proposals, made under Thai circumstances, valid in Thailand only, with no indication to forcefully have other countries implement the same.

Now once more, understandable under Thai circumstances, but probably unworkable. To ask for a workable situation we probably need to ask the NCPO to stay on a wee bit longer, or maybe indeed have the UN here for 15 years to educate the next generation of Thai 'democracy minded' electorate.

Obamacare, as originally contemplated, would have been more akin to Canada's national healthcare scheme. In it's final version, it did little to control private insurance companies and the rate of medical care inflation. The main benefits of the legislation was to provide affordable healthcare to millions of people who had no insurance and removed the hideous and immoral application on the exclusion of pre-existing conditions from coverage. The 30 baht scheme in Thailand would be a better plan for the US than letting insurance companies run amok. As for the EC, I don't think they should be analyzing party proposals. If it were to happen, and I am still very skeptical of the process, it would be better left to the OAG to prepare a cost/benefit analysis.

[mikemac]

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.

For once I agree with pipkins ; it is to be expected, a pack of bumbling oafs posing as a political party "mislaying" such a large amount of the peoples' money while at the same time feathering their own nests and flying around the world at the taxpayers' expense buying bloody handbags !

Talk about Nero and Rome......................................................

[metisdead]

A post containing anti coup/anti junta comments has been removed. Other posts that contain off topic references to Obamacare may disappear as well: off topic.

[robblok]

The article states as follows:

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.

As wriiten, it is a pretty broad mandate. Say, for instance, a party proposes to provide a subsidy to rice farmers and proposes that the program be funded with an additional "x" percent tax on automobiles that cost more than 4 million baht. (Or other such additional taxes on luxury items.) Based on the research the party presents to the EC on the sale of automobiles in the previous year in excess of 4 million baht, the additional tax will generate enough money to fund the subsidy. In your estimation, is the research and the information presented sufficient to show feasibility?

Yes it would, if they take into account a drop in sales on those cars too. What is so wrong of not allowing false promises and preventing doing what they did with the rice scheme..saying its cost neutral while it cost 700 billion (maybe more even). That was vote buying based on false promises.

At least I am getting a firm grasp on the concept. But I'm still not sure how this is carried out in reality. In the US, legislation that is initially introduced goes through so many iterations, amendments, riders, compromises in conference committees, that the original legislation looks nothing like the bill that was originally introduced. In addition, if the party making the promises turns out to be the opposition party, then the dynamics are affected as well. Since there has been numerous references about the system in the Netherlands in this thread, I was wondering if there have been any studies on how the restrictions on promises made during campaigns is actually related to legislation that is passed in Parliament. Is there a real connection or does it just give people a false sense of security?

In the Netherlands it works great and it can work good here too. What is wrong with checking an election program (promise) for financial suitability. It would have stopped the rice program (or not if they had sufficient budget for it).

They check all programs of all parties before allowing them. This way they can't promise things that are not financially sound (as in not enough money reserved for it) For instance if they were to say we lower the taxes with 10% and they don't budget for it then the program would not be allowed. If they did budget for it and made cuts in spending to compensate it would.

So its a great thing.. no false sense of security. But what you are worrying about is that they change things once in office.. they can do that but then the budget has to be checked. Here that might not work well because we have seen how the PTP responded to checks of the rice program. They threatened the government official who first came out with the real costs. So it just shows that there is need for even more independent organisation to counter the power of the government.

*edit* the checks of the program are important but you were asking what happens after election... i believe that after election the senate has to check the government (that is why its important to have an independent senate)

So this is only to make sure elections are fair and on a level playing field where all programs are checked of everyone in the election.

Edited July 14, 2014 by robblok

[pookiki]

The article states as follows:

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.

As wriiten, it is a pretty broad mandate. Say, for instance, a party proposes to provide a subsidy to rice farmers and proposes that the program be funded with an additional "x" percent tax on automobiles that cost more than 4 million baht. (Or other such additional taxes on luxury items.) Based on the research the party presents to the EC on the sale of automobiles in the previous year in excess of 4 million baht, the additional tax will generate enough money to fund the subsidy. In your estimation, is the research and the information presented sufficient to show feasibility?

Yes it would, if they take into account a drop in sales on those cars too. What is so wrong of not allowing false promises and preventing doing what they did with the rice scheme..saying its cost neutral while it cost 700 billion (maybe more even). That was vote buying based on false promises.

At least I am getting a firm grasp on the concept. But I'm still not sure how this is carried out in reality. In the US, legislation that is initially introduced goes through so many iterations, amendments, riders, compromises in conference committees, that the original legislation looks nothing like the bill that was originally introduced. In addition, if the party making the promises turns out to be the opposition party, then the dynamics are affected as well. Since there has been numerous references about the system in the Netherlands in this thread, I was wondering if there have been any studies on how the restrictions on promises made during campaigns is actually related to legislation that is passed in Parliament. Is there a real connection or does it just give people a false sense of security?

In the Netherlands it works great and it can work good here too. What is wrong with checking an election program (promise) for financial suitability. It would have stopped the rice program (or not if they had sufficient budget for it).

They check all programs of all parties before allowing them. This way they can't promise things that are not financially sound (as in not enough money reserved for it) For instance if they were to say we lower the taxes with 10% and they don't budget for it then the program would not be allowed. If they did budget for it and made cuts in spending to compensate it would.

So its a great thing.. no false sense of security. But what you are worrying about is that they change things once in office.. they can do that but then the budget has to be checked. Here that might not work well because we have seen how the PTP responded to checks of the rice program. They threatened the government official who first came out with the real costs. So it just shows that there is need for even more independent organisation to counter the power of the government.

*edit* the checks of the program are important but you were asking what happens after election... i believe that after election the senate has to check the government (that is why its important to have an independent senate)

So this is only to make sure elections are fair and on a level playing field where all programs are checked of everyone in the election.

Thanks for the info. One last question and a comment. As I understand the program in the Netherlands, it prohibits a party from making irresponsible campaign promises. If a program is regarded as not feasible before an election, doe that prohibition prevent the party from later introducing the same legislation in Parliament? In essence, is there veto or injunctive power?

With respect to the rice pledging program, I still don't understand why the government didn't make more of an attempt to sell the rice even if it was below the market prices at the time of the programs inception. If you know, has anyone estimated the value of the rice in the warehouses to determine the real estimated loss (cost of the subsidies minus projected income from sales) in enacting the scheme?

Edited July 14, 2014 by pookiki

[Thai at Heart]

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.

This rabid use of populist is as bad as "progressive" on fox news.

Just put an absolute limit of public debt at 50% of GDP and impose better scrutiny of the govt budget.

Then make it the law that all people in the country must show their tax return available online for anyone to see. Expose these charlatans amassing wealth with no apparent income. They do this in Norway I believe and it brings an awful lot of transparency (precisely 100%) to the public sector.