Party-list seen as a tool for reform: Thai report

[webfact]

SPECIAL REPORT
Party-list seen as a tool for reform
Kris Bhromsuthi
The Nation

Robust system would have helped Democrats more: Academics

BANGKOK: -- THREE PROMINENT Bangkok academics have proposed a reformed Parliament based in part on increasing the number of party-list members.

Chaiyan Chaiyaporn, a lecturer in political science at Chulalongkorn University, Attasit Pankaew, a lecturer in political science at Thammasat University and Satithorn Thananithichote, a researcher at King Prajadhipok's Institute, agreed there is a need to increase the number of party list members of Parliament (MPs) as part of parliamentary reform. They also drew attention to electoral systems that produce representatives from all social groups, as part of electoral reform.

Attasit suggested that increasing the number of party-list MPs could pave the way for more capable and experienced candidates who lacked a constituency support base to participate in the Parliament.

He suggested the number of party-list MPs should equal the number of constituency MPs. "More seats for party-list MPs would give them greater opportunity to represent their electors. Furthermore, this would produce people with ability and experience to solve a national problem, rather than a local problem, to have more chances to participate," he said.

Satithorn said that increasing the number of party-list MPs would also better reflect national support of political parties. Hence, a political party popular on a national level, but less successful on a constituency level, would be allocated more seats in the Parliament.

"If we look back to the general election of 2011, assume that we had an equal number seats between constituency and party-list MPs. The parliamentary seats allocation between Pheu Thai and Democrats would have been a lot closer, since the Democrats were more successful in gaining party-list votes than constituency votes, while it was the other way round for Pheu Thai," he said.

Satithorn stressed there must be a mechanism to ensure appropriate criteria for selecting party-list candidates. "We must make sure that candidates on the list have the appropriate ability and work experience, rather than a list full of party financial backers."

"Explicit rules of law could be added into the Constitution, stating there must be an equal proportion of representatives from various social groups, and clear responsibility for regulation could be delegated to certain independent organisations, for example the Election Commission," he added.

Attasit agreed that there must be rules and regulations for party-list members. He suggested the first 35 names on the party-list should also be candidates for ministers and the prime minister. As a result, it would draw more public attention and examination.

At a KPI seminar last week, Permanent-Secretary of Defence Surasak Kanjanarat, in charge of national reconciliation and reform, said he had been forced to vote for people he did not wish to be an MP as there was no better choice among the candidates.

Meanwhile, former Election Commission member Prapun Naigowit said party-list MPs' voting solved the loophole of a "winner take all" principle in voting for constituency MPs. He believed the proportion of party-list MPs at 25 per cent of the total was reasonable.

Prapun also said a bigger constituency would result in less vote buying.

Chaiyan said a enlarging constituencies and allowing multiple winners could improve chances of minority representatives winning seats.

"In a smaller constituency, assume there was a candidate who came from a business background, and another candidate from the working class. In an election, the business-oriented candidate received 10,000 votes while the working class-oriented candidate got 9,000. This would mean those 9,000 voices accounted for zero representation. By comparison, a bigger constituency would give a chance for working-class voters to join the numbers. The chances are that their representative would be one of the candidates elected, and hence the system would have paved the way for the wider inclusion of all social groups," he explained.

Attasit said that he believed the current electoral system produced MPs who worked for party leaders rather than the people. Having a primary run-off could solve this problem, he added.

"I think one of the key problems in Thai elections is that political party leaders select their constituencies' candidates, who then feel obliged to those leaders. As a result, they work for party leaders rather than representing the people. They are under the influence of political parties," he said.

"We can minimise their influence by having a primary vote. It could take place perhaps six months prior to a general election," he added.

"The implication is to take the power of candidate nomination from party leaders to the people. That way it could minimise the influence of political parties on candidates," Attasit explained.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Party-list-seen-as-a-tool-for-reform-30239609.html


-- The Nation 2014-07-28

[NongKhaiKid]

' More capable and experienced ' candidates mabye but what about the fact it allows an easy passage for ' special ' candidates ?

[ramrod711]

Or, you can make all kinds of unrealistic, pie in the sky promises and just pay people to vote for you.

[northernjohn]

It won't work. If it did an academic would not know it. Remember these are the people who have been training the woefully inadequate teachers in Thailand for years.

Now they want to teach us how to govern. What a joke.

Edited July 28, 2014 by northernjohn

[siampolee]

The party list is nothing more than a means of packing parliament with crooks cronies.

The rewards and of course the immunity from prosecution is indeed a valuable reward tool for those who may not often in reality have the best interests of the country and its peoples at heart but more their own vested interests, politically, business and family wise varied and perverse as those interests may be.

The whole concept of the lower house being partly selected is indeed a blow for democracy and an insult to those who voted no matter what their political preferences may have been.

[WhizBang]

Yeah, ok, the party list system has worked so well these past 12 years.

If anything, the party list system should be scrapped in it's entirety

[Robby nz]

Surely these cant be the same people who were complaining about the senate being partly appointed, partly elected ?

Not a great deal of difference to having a partly elected partly appointed (by a political party, party list) parliament.

Party lists are only a way of getting people into parliament who would otherwise never be elected, party stooges.

Only elected MP's. Strengthen the requirements for those standing as an MP candidates to keep the crooks out.

That will cut down the number of useless bums on chairs who never seem to do anything, speak in the house or even visit an electorate.

It will make everyone there accountable to their electors.

[scorecard]

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

Surely these cant be the same people who were complaining about the senate being partly appointed, partly elected ?

Not a great deal of difference to having a partly elected partly appointed (by a political party, party list) parliament.

Party lists are only a way of getting people into parliament who would otherwise never be elected, party stooges.

Only elected MP's. Strengthen the requirements for those standing as an MP candidates to keep the crooks out.

That will cut down the number of useless bums on chairs who never seem to do anything, speak in the house or even visit an electorate.

It will make everyone there accountable to their electors.

"Party lists are only a way of getting people into parliament who would otherwise never be elected, party stooges."

Well said, three times.

[chotthee]

The easiest way to BUY a MP seat is through the party list. The more you CONTRIBUTE to the party, the higher up you are on the list.

This is exactly why Mark increase the party list quota when he last amend the constitution; because a lot of Elite Democrats MP can afford to AUCTION for seats.

[WitawatWatawit]

In a perfect world, this concept might be acceptable. But guess what?

This nonsense should be dropped. Just like the idea of larger constituencies _ that will only increase the chances for manipulation of the system, while further alienating the voter from his/her MP. Keep the smaller constituencies, but tighten the rules on party and independent representation. Some ways of doing that include potential pollies registering with the EC even when no election is due (minimum lead time 3-4 months); every single person involved in a candidate's campaign must register with the EC (including volunteers), with paid workers forced to submit audited asset statements; much tighter controls on campaign funding and spending; banning sitting MPs from company directorships and any involvement in any company with current or future interest in govt contracts (this is often flouted).

That's enough. I need a plate of cornflakes right now.

[rickirs]

Academics are not known for being realists. "Ivory Tower" comes to mind.

Why not, just as in golf, give the Democrat Party a vote handicap (some irony there), say that for every opposition vote the Democrats are GRANTED an extra vote. That way Democrats are assured to control the government, there will never be any need for a military coup, and Gen. Prayuth can retire to a well deserved rest.

[jpeg]

It won't work. If it did an academic would not know it. Remember these are the people who have been training the woefully inadequate teachers in Thailand for years.

Now they want to teach us how to govern. What a joke.

'Us'?

[cacruden]

If you want to reform the party system, you have to make them accountable to the people. Which means people should be able to join the party of choice with a minimal membership purchase (maybe 30 baht) and be able to drive democratically that party's platform -- pick members for their riding, and if they have a party list that should be selected by the general membership. Party list members right now have a loyalty to the leadership of the party and not the people -- this has got to change. No family members of any MP or party exec should be allowed to be put on the party list itself - they should only be able to elected in ridings.

[fab4]

The party list is nothing more than a means of packing parliament with crooks cronies.

The rewards and of course the immunity from prosecution is indeed a valuable reward tool for those who may not often in reality have the best interests of the country and its peoples at heart but more their own vested interests, politically, business and family wise varied and perverse as those interests may be.

The whole concept of the lower house being partly selected is indeed a blow for democracy and an insult to those who voted no matter what their political preferences may have been.

"The party list is nothing more than a means of packing parliament with crooks cronies."

Do you think that was the reasoning behind abhisits decision to raise the number of party list candidates from 80 to 125 in his constitutional amendment in 2011? Or was it the just as cynical viewpoint that the Dems traditionally fared worse in constituencies seats as opposed to the party list, as the OP points out, either way it didn't work out too well for the dems did it?

"If we look back to the general election of 2011, assume that we had an equal number seats between constituency and party-list MPs. The parliamentary seats allocation between Pheu Thai and Democrats would have been a lot closer, since the Democrats were more successful in gaining party-list votes than constituency votes, while it was the other way round for Pheu Thai,"

Edited July 28, 2014 by fab4

[fab4]

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

Surely these cant be the same people who were complaining about the senate being partly appointed, partly elected ?

Not a great deal of difference to having a partly elected partly appointed (by a political party, party list) parliament.

Party lists are only a way of getting people into parliament who would otherwise never be elected, party stooges.

Only elected MP's. Strengthen the requirements for those standing as an MP candidates to keep the crooks out.

That will cut down the number of useless bums on chairs who never seem to do anything, speak in the house or even visit an electorate.

It will make everyone there accountable to their electors.

"Party lists are only a way of getting people into parliament who would otherwise never be elected, party stooges."

Well said, three times.

I presume you intend to denigrate the former PM Yingluck Shinawatra with your witty riposte. You may recall that abhisit was a party list addition as well.

[siampolee]

fab 4 post # 14.

The party list is nothing more than a means of packing parliament with crooks cronies."

Do you think that was the reasoning behind abhisits decision to raise the number of party list candidates from 80 to 125 in his constitutional amendment in November 2011? Or was it the just as cynical viewpoint that the Dems traditionally fared worse in constituencies seats as opposed to the party list, as the OP points out, either way it didn't work out too well for the dems did it?

"If we look back to the general election of 2011, assume that we had an equal number seats between constituency and party-list MPs. The parliamentary seats allocation between Pheu Thai and Democrats would have been a lot closer, since the Democrats were more successful in gaining party-list votes than constituency votes, while it was the other way round for Pheu Thai,"

A valid point and in fact I doubt we shall ever know the reasoning behind that idea.

However it was noticeable that the Shinwatra regime used the party list as protection for the criminal elements that were and still are in its ranks and of course the party list was the avenue to put an inexperienced wanna be political figure in place as a Prime Minister in name only of course...

Hence the argument you espouse and put forward applies equally to the Shinwatra P.T.P.regime who used the party list solely for their own protection and self enrichment, thus the abolishing of ''The party list '' is a must. irrespective of whom or what may be in power.

[fab4]

fab 4 post # 14.

The party list is nothing more than a means of packing parliament with crooks cronies."

Do you think that was the reasoning behind abhisits decision to raise the number of party list candidates from 80 to 125 in his constitutional amendment in November 2011? Or was it the just as cynical viewpoint that the Dems traditionally fared worse in constituencies seats as opposed to the party list, as the OP points out, either way it didn't work out too well for the dems did it?

"If we look back to the general election of 2011, assume that we had an equal number seats between constituency and party-list MPs. The parliamentary seats allocation between Pheu Thai and Democrats would have been a lot closer, since the Democrats were more successful in gaining party-list votes than constituency votes, while it was the other way round for Pheu Thai,"

A valid point and in fact I doubt we shall ever know the reasoning behind that idea.

However it was noticeable that the Shinwatra regime used the party list as protection for the criminal elements that were and still are in its ranks and of course the party list was the avenue to put an inexperienced wanna be political figure in place as a Prime Minister in name only of course...

Hence the argument you espouse and put forward applies equally to the Shinwatra P.T.P.regime who used the party list solely for their own protection and self enrichment, thus the abolishing of ''The party list '' is a must. irrespective of whom or what may be in power.

To be fair I think you do know the reasoning behind abhisits idea to raise the number of party list candidates. If you don't, or are not admitting you do, a few political pundits could spell it out for you.

However, I don't think they could help in identifying the "criminal" elements you espouse as being provided protection by the party list, perhaps you could explain your comment.

[kingstonkid]

Coming from Canada I may be biased bu ti think the system of each member being elected by the people to represent the people is more beneficial.

The last thing I want is someone telling me who my rep is going tobe and not giving me a say.

Party List is good for thanking financial supporters and cronies only.

it does nothing for the people and the party list MP has no allegiance or responsibility to the people that elected them because they were not elected.

[siampolee]

fab4 post # 17

To be fair I think you do know the reasoning behind abhisits idea to raise the number of party list candidates. If you don't, or are not admitting you do, a few political pundits could spell it out for you.

However, I don't think they could help in identifying the "criminal" elements you espouse as being provided protection by the party list, perhaps you could explain your comment.

Well with your profound in depth knowledge of the Thai political system perhaps we could be blessed with your judgement upon the matter of Abhisits idea.

Jutaporn is but one P.T.P. party list element who is best described as undesirable who springs to mind as a beneficiary of the ''Party list.''

However given your track record of actually answering questions in your own way as opposed to press cuttings and clipping a logical self generated positive response from you not ''written in red ink'' would be about as rare as hens teeth.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcpKTlkhjmH0x2g1ZJmXhX4jlsYQ-1T54pMNVLmiYzUaZkYa5JiA

[abrahamzvi]

I would sincerely suggest to the future assembly to seriously examine the German electoral system. In my view it is nearly as perfect as any system can be in as much as the parliamentary seats are based 50% on a party lists and 50% on constituency seats.Every voter has two votes one for a constituency candidate and one for a party list. Every constituency elected member gets a seat, but if his party gets thereby more seats than it should get on the party list basis other parties are compensated by getting more party list seats in accordance with the votes cast for them on the party lists.. In order to make sure that not too many small parties make the working of the parliament impossible there are threshold limits, at present set at 5% of the total votes on the party lists.

Naturally such a system can and has to be adjusted to local conditions and situations, but it should be looked into to see if it should not form a basis for a fair representation of the will of the electorate and the proper democratic working of the parliament and elected government

[billd766]

IMO the party list should be abolished completely as should parliamentary immunity.

If you want to keep the same number of MPs to the current size divide the voting population by the number of MPs and change the electoral boundaries.

[fab4]

fab4 post # 17

To be fair I think you do know the reasoning behind abhisits idea to raise the number of party list candidates. If you don't, or are not admitting you do, a few political pundits could spell it out for you.

However, I don't think they could help in identifying the "criminal" elements you espouse as being provided protection by the party list, perhaps you could explain your comment.

Well with your profound in depth knowledge of the Thai political system perhaps we could be blessed with your judgement upon the matter of Abhisits idea.

Jutaporn is but one P.T.P. party list element who is best described as undesirable who springs to mind as a beneficiary of the ''Party list.''

However given your track record of actually answering questions in your own way as opposed to press cuttings and clipping a logical self generated positive response from you not ''written in red ink'' would be about as rare as hens teeth.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcpKTlkhjmH0x2g1ZJmXhX4jlsYQ-1T54pMNVLmiYzUaZkYa5JiA

What are you talking about now? I explained why abhisit increased the number of party list candidates, so did the OP. If you want to dig a bit more into it he also had to keep his shaky coalition together at the time which also had a bearing on the decision over changes to the party list and changing from multi seat to single seat constituencies. The rest of your post, well, who knows what you're on about there? Answering questions in my own way? What do you expect me to do, adopt your "post with pictures for the simple" meme?

[Eric Loh]

Better to see the party list in the correct perspective. The party list system was a creation of tne1997 constitution which was triggered by the Black May violence. Chuan government relented under pressure to initiate a committee which culminated in the people 1997 Constitution.

Taksin ran with this new system and won handsomely. Some here seem to think the Taksin created the party list system to gain benefits.

The reasoning behind the party list besides attracting capable politicians was to avoid additional time and cost to hold another election when MPs are appointed as ministers. By law, ministers must relinquish their MP status when they become ministers. Simply a reason of pragmatism.

Whether it attract criminal elements is not the fault of the system. There are sufficient laws to prevent politicians that are convicted and have them removed.

The best system for check and balance is still the electorate during election time.

[siampolee]

fab4 post # 22

What are you talking about now? I explained why abhisit increased the number of party list candidates, so did the OP. If you want to dig a bit more into it he also had to keep his shaky coalition together at the time which also had a bearing on the decision over changes to the party list and changing from multi seat to single seat constituencies. The rest of your post, well, who knows what you're on about there? Answering questions in my own way? What do you expect me to do, adopt your "post with pictures for the simple" meme?

Now the interesting point.

You quote from past history concerning Abihisits motives yet when others quote from past history you dismiss those comments. Now yet again you're proved to be what could be best described as a vexatious poster when the case goes against you...

Is it possible that your mentor would let you speak from your own minds? Somehow I doubt it,

[belg]

lets start farang party... everybody free car, house & mia noi / toy boy

everybody happy

we will win ?