Curbing Thai party leaders' influence

[webfact]

POLITICS
Curbing party leaders' influence
KRIS BHROMSUTHI
THE NATION

Reform council to consider ways to limit power of demanding party backers

BANGKOK: -- PROMINENT academics and researchers have targeted the influence that political party financiers have over MPs as a main area in political reform that needs to be changed, suggesting that financiers' party contributions be capped.

According to democratic principles, an MP's duty is to represent his or her constituents, rather than take orders from the party leader or financiers - a trend that has caused severe damage to Thailand's democratic system in recent history.

A proposal to end this undue influence will be put forward to the National Reform Council (NRC) by the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA) and Council of University Presidents of Thailand. (See graphic)

The NRC is tasked with drawing up a national reform framework, which will be handed over to the National Legislative Assembly, the Cabinet and National Council for Peace and Order, who will then give inputs to the Constitution Drafting Committee.

News of the proposal, meanwhile, has met with mixed reactions from other academics and politicians.

Chaiyan Chaiyaporn, a political scientist from Chulalongkorn University, agreed that steps should be taken to cut down the influence party leaders have over MPs, by letting candidates enter elections independently. He said this would also encourage political parties to grow "organically", for instance by bringing together politicians who |share the same ideology.

Attasit Pankaew, a political science lecturer at Thammasat University, said he wanted to see a better balance of power between party leaders and party members, who should be freed from overbearing influence.

"MPs have to follow their party's orders far too much," he said.

He also suggested that new political parties first run in local elections before entering the national arena. This way, a party will be built "from the ground up", he said, adding that this would also allow candidates to be judged on their individual abilities and qualifications, rather than voters' allegiance to a party. Also, he said, candidates would no longer be obligated to their party leaders.

Another way of curbing this influence would be to hold primary elections a few months before general elections are held, so candidates can work towards winning approval from voters instead of party leaders.

Is party discipline that bad?

Pheu Thai Party's Udomdech Rattanasathien, meanwhile, said a party member's need to go under a party's banner was not related to money, but based more on strength.

"Curbing a financier's or leader's influence on members by capping the funds is a mere illusion," Udomdech said.

He also disagreed with the notion that candidates should be allowed to run in elections without a party, saying this would create an unstable government that would need to dissolve Parliament frequently - a problem that occurred a few decades ago but was resolved by the 1997 Constitution. He added that the only way forward was to build a political system that promotes a strong party.

"For the political field to be stable, we need stable political parties so that Parliament does not get dissolved frequently and governments can last the entire term before their performance is judged by the people in an election every four years," Udomdech said.

"We tried all sorts of rules and systems before we agreed to focus on creating strong parties and government. Why would we want to change that again?"

Red-shirt leader and Pheu Thai member Weng Tojirakarn said NIDA's proposal to cap financiers' party funding was an "interesting suggestion that is worth considering", as he agreed that party members should be allowed more independence in opinion and action.

Weng said the notion of party members being obliged to follow their party's consensus was not "wrong" as such, because members are aware of their party's principles and policy before they join. He pointed out that if they did not agree with the party, they could always leave.

"A political party is formed according to party members' shared principles. Hence, it's unfair to say a party member only follows the party line because they are on the payroll," the red-shirt leader said.

Democrat party spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut, meanwhile, said he doubted that NIDA's proposal to curb funding would effectively reduce financiers' influence on party members.

"If a financier or leader wants to provide funding to a party member or give them a monthly salary or rewards, such transactions would not be disclosed to the public or any regulator. So I doubt if curbs can solve this problem," he said.

However, he agreed that it was necessary to impose tight controls on a party's campaign funding, as it would be "better to solve the problem at its root".

Campaign funding

All candidates need campaign funding, he admitted, adding that to win, they need a lot of money, which is how they become indebted to financiers or party leaders. Hence, capping or regulating campaign spending would protect candidates from being obligated to their financiers and party leaders.

He admitted that "there is no perfect solution that can solve all problems", though he said it was important to lay strong foundations that enrich the democratic atmosphere in the future by taking measures such as strengthening education and the public sector.

Source; http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Curbing-party-leaders-influence-30244342.html


-- The Nation 2014-09-29

[chainarong]

Well first up, no property developers or land agents, all contributions must be limited to 150.000bht or a set limit figure from individuals and companies, all contributions must be declared, persons with a criminal record are not allowed to contribute funds, no persons from the military above rank of sergeant or heads of departments may contribute , there's a few suggestions to mull over P.M. Prayuth.

[ramrod711]

According to democratic principles, an MP's duty is to represent his or her constituents, rather than take orders from the party leader or financiers - a trend that has caused severe damage to Thailand's democratic system in recent history.

Rather than take orders from Dubai, would be the appropriate wording.

[selftaopath]

Enforced RULE OF LAW would benefit Thailand immensely. But where can it be found in Lack of Sanctions (LOS)?

[shirtless]

Yes democracy has losts its way, its all about the money.

[scorecard]

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

Well first up, no property developers or land agents, all contributions must be limited to 150.000bht or a set limit figure from individuals and companies, all contributions must be declared, persons with a criminal record are not allowed to contribute funds, no persons from the military above rank of sergeant or heads of departments may contribute , there's a few suggestions to mull over P.M. Prayuth. width=32 alt=coffee1.gif>

Agree, plus...

...... must be declared and available and easy to find, in full detail, on the party website ......... If not shown, a serious offence.

[robblok]

Not strange that the PTP is against this slowly but surely their power is broken down. With some luck this country will end their power once and for all. Once the army is really done the PTP is no longer a threat.

Get the money out of the politics and then it is no longer viable for people like Taksin to buy everyone off as there is no or less money to be made. Once that is done this country can have peace. Now everyone wants to be in power to abuse the country and steal from it one way or the other. Break this down and things will get better. This is also a good plan but still not enough.

[Chang_paarp]

A lot of the "troubles" with Thai democracy is not in the need for new rules and laws, it is the total lack of enforcement of existing laws.

If the bureaucracy and judiciary enforced the existing laws without fear or favour this would do a lot towards the acceptance of real democracy. This should include things like collecting the taxes due rather than those "negotiated", providing the needed cash flow for the government to implement their projects and to be able to pay realistic wage to the civil servants.

[halloween]

Weng has put his foot in it again.

"Hence, it's unfair to say a party member only follows the party line because they are on the payroll," the red-shirt leader said."

Democrat politicians pay dues to be members of the party, they are paid by the nation. PTP MPs are paid to follow Thaksin's orders.

One way to curb influence is to scrap the party list system, and make ALL MPs face an electorate and its scrutiny. Allowing billionaires to "buy" popular politicians, and then appoint themselves, family members, corrupt cronies and criminals seeking to avoid prosecution to the parliament is not democracy in my book.

[jayboy]

A lot of the "troubles" with Thai democracy is not in the need for new rules and laws, it is the total lack of enforcement of existing laws.

If the bureaucracy and judiciary enforced the existing laws without fear or favour this would do a lot towards the acceptance of real democracy. This should include things like collecting the taxes due rather than those "negotiated", providing the needed cash flow for the government to implement their projects and to be able to pay realistic wage to the civil servants.

Thai democracy has always been fragile.A basic flaw is that the rich and powerful can't bear an electoral result which is not to their liking.Having said that I agree there are useful reforms to be made on financing, and there are plenty of examples from other countries - no need to reinvent the wheel though of course local needs should be taken into account.As usual a dominant theme is the need to weaken party discipline, and the influence of party leaders.This is misleading since party discipline is normal and necessary.What do people think the Whips Office in the House of Commons does? In Thailand those who rage against politicians are usually speaking code - ie we don't like democratic civilian control where the unwashed masses determine policy.Ditto the hypocrisy on populism, as though democratic countries all over the world don't cater to the peoples needs.

[halloween]

Thai democracy has always been fragile.A basic flaw is that the rich and powerful can't bear an electoral result which is not to their liking.Having said that I agree there are useful reforms to be made on financing, and there are plenty of examples from other countries - no need to reinvent the wheel though of course local needs should be taken into account.As usual a dominant theme is the need to weaken party discipline, and the influence of party leaders.This is misleading since party discipline is normal and necessary.What do people think the Whips Office in the House of Commons does? In Thailand those who rage against politicians are usually speaking code - ie we don't like democratic civilian control where the unwashed masses determine policy.Ditto the hypocrisy on populism, as though democratic countries all over the world don't cater to the peoples needs.

Catering to the people's needs is called responsible government. Populism is pandering to their wants.

[smutcakes]

Thai democracy has always been fragile.A basic flaw is that the rich and powerful can't bear an electoral result which is not to their liking.Having said that I agree there are useful reforms to be made on financing, and there are plenty of examples from other countries - no need to reinvent the wheel though of course local needs should be taken into account.As usual a dominant theme is the need to weaken party discipline, and the influence of party leaders.This is misleading since party discipline is normal and necessary.What do people think the Whips Office in the House of Commons does? In Thailand those who rage against politicians are usually speaking code - ie we don't like democratic civilian control where the unwashed masses determine policy.Ditto the hypocrisy on populism, as though democratic countries all over the world don't cater to the peoples needs.

Catering to the people's needs is called responsible government. Populism is pandering to their wants.

Whilst i agree that catering to people's needs is one of the jobs of a Government, i think it becomes extremely subjective what amounts to populism and what doesn't. Nearly every policy any Government makes relating to assisting people could be deemed populist.

If there is going to be a purge on populist policies, i think it needs to be extremely well thought through, otherwise whatever policy one Government does is going to have the opposition screaming from the roof top that it is populist.

When does a policy become populist, rather than catering to people's needs? A very fine line, and in the Thailand political context, extremely difficult to see how it could be dealt with fairly and by whom. Does the TAT requesting the Govt to consider extra days public holiday, and that being approved by the Govt, is that populist? Does the Junta approving the infrastructure bill which could have huge positive impacts in some areas of the country, does that become populist?

[halloween]

Catering to the people's needs is called responsible government. Populism is pandering to their wants.

Whilst i agree that catering to people's needs is one of the jobs of a Government, i think it becomes extremely subjective what amounts to populism and what doesn't. Nearly every policy any Government makes relating to assisting people could be deemed populist.

If there is going to be a purge on populist policies, i think it needs to be extremely well thought through, otherwise whatever policy one Government does is going to have the opposition screaming from the roof top that it is populist.

When does a policy become populist, rather than catering to people's needs? A very fine line, and in the Thailand political context, extremely difficult to see how it could be dealt with fairly and by whom. Does the TAT requesting the Govt to consider extra days public holiday, and that being approved by the Govt, is that populist? Does the Junta approving the infrastructure bill which could have huge positive impacts in some areas of the country, does that become populist?

Of course the line between the two is far from sharply defined. But it can be focused by presenting a cost/benefit analysis for independent scrutiny, and by transparency in the implementation. How well would the rice scam fared under C/B analysis? How would the G2G corruption have been possible with required transparency?

BTW winning votes is NOT a benefit.

Edited September 29, 2014 by halloween

[Thailand]

Never going to work. It doesn't work in the likes of the USA it certainly won't work here.

Contributions will be given and rewarded in one way or another, too easy to circumvent.

[jayboy]

[quote name="halloween" post="8453781" timestamp="1411957349"

Catering to the people's needs is called responsible government. Populism is pandering to their wants.

But how to distinguish between wants and needs? If there is universal franchise then it is inevitable, notwithstanding any checks and balances, that there will be a degree of populism.That is part and parcel of democracy.In Thailand I cannot see there is as much abuse of populism as there is in the US or Japan to take just two examples where farmers are provided with uneconomic subsidies.In Thailand there is a massive gap between rich and poor and it could be argued that what is needed is not less populist policies but more.

The rice support scheme was wrongheaded but I cannot see any problem with the Governments's policy aim of supporting rural people who were the bedrock voters.A legitimate government like that of Yingluck has the right even the duty to help out its supporters.Of course there should be no corruption, efficient management,implementation consistent with the country's macro needs-and all or some of this was lacking.But it is the principle I am talking about.And there was nothing wrong with this at all.

In Thailand the mantra of the unelected elite and its mainly Sino Thai middle class supporters is that populism means the producers of wealth and payers of tax are helping out those who don't really produce wealth and don't really pay much tax.In fact this isn't true but it illustrates the mindset of those who are now in the ascendant.The majority in their perception are somehow "other" and not really qualified to have political influence.

[smutcakes]

Catering to the people's needs is called responsible government. Populism is pandering to their wants.

Whilst i agree that catering to people's needs is one of the jobs of a Government, i think it becomes extremely subjective what amounts to populism and what doesn't. Nearly every policy any Government makes relating to assisting people could be deemed populist.

If there is going to be a purge on populist policies, i think it needs to be extremely well thought through, otherwise whatever policy one Government does is going to have the opposition screaming from the roof top that it is populist.

When does a policy become populist, rather than catering to people's needs? A very fine line, and in the Thailand political context, extremely difficult to see how it could be dealt with fairly and by whom. Does the TAT requesting the Govt to consider extra days public holiday, and that being approved by the Govt, is that populist? Does the Junta approving the infrastructure bill which could have huge positive impacts in some areas of the country, does that become populist?

Of course the line between the two is far from sharply defined. But it can be focused by presenting a cost/benefit analysis for independent scrutiny, and by transparency in the implementation. How well would the rice scam fared under C/B analysis? How would the G2G corruption have been possible with required transparency?

BTW winning votes is NOT a benefit.

I am unsure how a C/B analysis of a subsidy would work. Accountants, economists etc can make anything look good on paper, unfortunately what is on paper does not always transpire into real world.

In terms of timelines, results, repercussion etc i am unsure how this could work. Also a very pertinent question in Thailand would be how would you unsure the scrutinizing committee did not become politicized or open to influence either.

[chotthee]

Isn't Chaiyan Chaiyaporn the guy who is against election, by tearing the ballet paper in front of press in a polling station?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/04/03/headlines/headlines_30000819.php

[Commerce]

Not strange that the PTP is against this slowly but surely their power is broken down. With some luck this country will end their power once and for all. Once the army is really done the PTP is no longer a threat.

Get the money out of the politics and then it is no longer viable for people like Taksin to buy everyone off as there is no or less money to be made. Once that is done this country can have peace. Now everyone wants to be in power to abuse the country and steal from it one way or the other. Break this down and things will get better. This is also a good plan but still not enough.

Watch out for rubber prices. Old hands in new rubber balls have a tendency to bounce back, just when you think you've lost sight of them, after you've thrown them against a wall.

Sometimes, they even hit you in the face.

[Commerce]

Thai DFMEA:

Description ....... Failure mode.. .. Effect.... Severity..... Cause of Failure .... Prevention for Cause....... Occurance ... Detection... RPN

Thai improvement

on efficency of

Government and

Control. Corruption Catasrophic Delta 10 Benders or Use Policing 10 0 1M Baht

Failure Bent or Army 10 0 1M Baht

[fab4]

According to democratic principles, an MP's duty is to represent his or her constituents, rather than take orders from the party leader or financiers - a trend that has caused severe damage to Thailand's democratic system in recent history.

Rather than take orders from Dubai, would be the appropriate wording.

If you had added "Or various powerful families in Bangkok and elsewhere" your "post" (one liner) might have been relevant and not seen as just another rant at Lord Voldemort na Dubai.

Edited September 29, 2014 by fab4

[AleG]

"MPs must ensure they attend House meetings (*). Whoever is responsible for a lack of quorum in Parliament will face an allowance cut,''

Guess who's quote is that?

(*) To vote as instructed, obviously.

[fab4]

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

Well first up, no property developers or land agents, all contributions must be limited to 150.000bht or a set limit figure from individuals and companies, all contributions must be declared, persons with a criminal record are not allowed to contribute funds, no persons from the military above rank of sergeant or heads of departments may contribute , there's a few suggestions to mull over P.M. Prayuth. width=32 alt=coffee1.gif>

Agree, plus...

...... must be declared and available and easy to find, in full detail, on the party website ......... If not shown, a serious offence.

As amply demonstrated by General Noppadon Intapaya (NLA member and advisor to the Junta) who, along with 27 other NLA members, has sought a judicial review from the Administrative Court on whether it was really necessary for them to declare their assets................

Note: NLA members were supposed to have declared their assets by September 7th, according to the NACC - but I suppose they're busy arranging the impeachment of Yingluck and any other possible future problem people.

Edited September 29, 2014 by fab4

[siampolee]

fab 4 post # 20

If you had added "Or various powerful families in Bangkok and elsewhere" your "post" (one liner) might have been relevant and not seen as just another rant at Lord Voldemort na Dubai.

If you had added "Or various powerful families in Bangkok and elsewhere allied to the Shinwatra clan and its cause" your "post" was totally relevant as justifiable rant at Lord Voldemort na Dubai.

[fab4]

fab 4 post # 20

If you had added "Or various powerful families in Bangkok and elsewhere" your "post" (one liner) might have been relevant and not seen as just another rant at Lord Voldemort na Dubai.

If you had added "Or various powerful families in Bangkok and elsewhere allied to the Shinwatra clan and its cause" your "post" was totally relevant as justifiable rant at Lord Voldemort na Dubai.

edit : unnecessary video from an "unbiased" source removed. Guess irony is not your thing.

I think you missed the point of a statement made without bias, but never mind, siampolee, you'll catch up, eventually.

Edited September 29, 2014 by fab4

[siampolee]

If I ever caught up with you fab4 I would be of the opinion Alzheimer had stricken me down.

[Thai at Heart]

Thai democracy has always been fragile.A basic flaw is that the rich and powerful can't bear an electoral result which is not to their liking.Having said that I agree there are useful reforms to be made on financing, and there are plenty of examples from other countries - no need to reinvent the wheel though of course local needs should be taken into account.As usual a dominant theme is the need to weaken party discipline, and the influence of party leaders.This is misleading since party discipline is normal and necessary.What do people think the Whips Office in the House of Commons does? In Thailand those who rage against politicians are usually speaking code - ie we don't like democratic civilian control where the unwashed masses determine policy.Ditto the hypocrisy on populism, as though democratic countries all over the world don't cater to the peoples needs.

Catering to the people's needs is called responsible government. Populism is pandering to their wants.

Whilst i agree that catering to people's needs is one of the jobs of a Government, i think it becomes extremely subjective what amounts to populism and what doesn't. Nearly every policy any Government makes relating to assisting people could be deemed populist.

If there is going to be a purge on populist policies, i think it needs to be extremely well thought through, otherwise whatever policy one Government does is going to have the opposition screaming from the roof top that it is populist.

When does a policy become populist, rather than catering to people's needs? A very fine line, and in the Thailand political context, extremely difficult to see how it could be dealt with fairly and by whom. Does the TAT requesting the Govt to consider extra days public holiday, and that being approved by the Govt, is that populist? Does the Junta approving the infrastructure bill which could have huge positive impacts in some areas of the country, does that become populist?

That's why they love this word populist. It is just slang for "anything the right wing in Bangkok doesn't like".

Almost as bad a the way Fox news uses the word " Liberal".

[slapout]

There used to be an old adage, ''those that can't do teach''. I have never agreed with this statement, as I have had the privilage to meet, observe,socialize, and study under many (in my opinion, the majority of teachers) who set positive standards for students and the community.

On the other hand it seems the majority of politicans and those that finance/instruct them, are only capable of scaming others out of the money/benifets they have worked hard to earn. Thus my belief is the majority of politicians are only adapt at corruption, scams and accumulating possions/wealth off of the ideas,work, sweat, tears, and finance of others who have put honest effort into getting what they have.

To point out/declare unusual wealth, asset declacration, even large bank transactions etc seems to meet with opposition on a grand scale by the old guard, their cronies, the RTP/BIB, and those who do business/socialize with these groups.

Until jail time, asset siezure, and enforcement of penality for wrong doing is stiff enough to put the fear of god, health, and life into these peoplewe have to contend with them.

[NongKhaiKid]

Interesting, a propsal on curbing power being made to an authority with absolute power. Only for implementation after they have stood down of course.

[ramrod711]

According to democratic principles, an MP's duty is to represent his or her constituents, rather than take orders from the party leader or financiers - a trend that has caused severe damage to Thailand's democratic system in recent history.

Rather than take orders from Dubai, would be the appropriate wording.

If you had added "Or various powerful families in Bangkok and elsewhere" your "post" (one liner) might have been relevant and not seen as just another rant at Lord Voldemort na Dubai.

Fortunately for me, I don't need any advice on posting from the likes of you. Every post supports the UDD / Shinawatra agenda, I won't suggest that you try looking at yourself before you post.....it would be pointless.

[rubl]

But how to distinguish between wants and needs? If there is universal franchise then it is inevitable, notwithstanding any checks and balances, that there will be a degree of populism.That is part and parcel of democracy.In Thailand I cannot see there is as much abuse of populism as there is in the US or Japan to take just two examples where farmers are provided with uneconomic subsidies.In Thailand there is a massive gap between rich and poor and it could be argued that what is needed is not less populist policies but more.

The rice support scheme was wrongheaded but I cannot see any problem with the Governments's policy aim of supporting rural people who were the bedrock voters.A legitimate government like that of Yingluck has the right even the duty to help out its supporters.Of course there should be no corruption, efficient management,implementation consistent with the country's macro needs-and all or some of this was lacking.But it is the principle I am talking about.And there was nothing wrong with this at all.

In Thailand the mantra of the unelected elite and its mainly Sino Thai middle class supporters is that populism means the producers of wealth and payers of tax are helping out those who don't really produce wealth and don't really pay much tax.In fact this isn't true but it illustrates the mindset of those who are now in the ascendant.The majority in their perception are somehow "other" and not really qualified to have political influence.

So, 700++ billion Baht guaranteed by the Yingluck Government and jayboy doesn't see much populism. He even writes it was the duty of the Yingluck Government.

Well, good governance means that money is spent wisely and has effect on the targetgroup specifically and indirectly on the country.

The mantra of 'unelected elite' seems aimed at distraction or pushing a political program close to forced distribution of wealth. Interesting though to see this written after the 'duty of the Yingluck govnmt. to help'

I think one of the problems with Thai political parties is that they have an 'owner' who also acts as financer. We have Thaksin's party, Banharn's party, Newin's party, Gen. Sonthi's party and to a (much) lesser extend Abhisit's party. What about "we, the people" ?