Would Thailand be run better if its PM was elected directly by the people?

[harada]

Democracy Thai style: People vote and elect a government. Said government tries to divert policy and funding away from the Bkk elite. The "invisible hand" steps in and calls the army to expel the democratically elected government. Repeat cycle every 5 years or so...

Right on the money.

[Fred Flinstone]

Its very sad the Question is asked

[rickirs]

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

Wasn't YL elected by the people? Case closed.

No she wasn't. She was a party list MP. She was then elected PM by the other MPs.

The 2007 Constitution required that the PM must be a MP. Obviously after abolishing that constitution, General Prayut was able to chooset himself as PM. Ain't absolute power wonderful? And NOW there is a debate on how to elect the PM? "Tragic" is another word for "Thailand."

[laobali]

System A doesn't work because...

System B can't work because...

System C won't work because...

System D might work except for...

Thailand is ungovernable because of...

Corruption.

[wandasloan]

Uprisings? In plural? In Thailand? Name 2 or more please!!!

Not even during the Japanese occupation there was one.

If you cannot instantly name two large ones you should not be commenting in this thread or any Thailand political thread. Anyone who can't instantly name 5 hasn't been paying much attention.

.

[pisico]

Uprisings? In plural? In Thailand? Name 2 or more please!!!

Not even during the Japanese occupation there was one.

If you cannot instantly name two large ones you should not be commenting in this thread or any Thailand political thread. Anyone who can't instantly name 5 hasn't been paying much attention.

.

Instead of deriding my post, why don't you lead with your example and name the 5 most recent uprisings against military rule?

Passive/aggressive criticism is easy. To lead by example is not.

Edited October 27, 2014 by pisico

[DrTuner]

Politicians are all the same, no matter elected or self appointed. Thailand's only chance is full colonialization and a chance of becoming another Hong Kong or Singapore.

[Emster23]

They need to study this at University of highest standards. I suggest "Academy Fantasia"

[KhnomKhnom]

It is good to ask this question and info on surrounding nations is interesting.... but, the parliamentary form of govt. has an essential part, the choosing of the PM by the parliament, not by the people. In America, that would be like making the President the Majority Leader of the Senate which, in America, would destroy one third of the checks and balances of usa govt structure. ...and insure one party dominance.

The UK Brit parliamentary form was invented because the Members were of the upper crust and not gutter fighters. They were devoted to struggling inside the two party system, one with the other, but finally accepting the MAJORITY RULES concept and going ahead with a mostly working govt. system.

Brit style parliament is terribly suited to emerging democracies because it automatically places only the court in a balancing position, not a good use of Western styled courts and with extended delays for deliberations, would effectively freeze a nation. Further, this form opens the gate for a Thaksin to rise and dominate as the lone, king-like final ruler. In a parliamentary form with a constitution instead of a king, the royal cushion on excessive power on a Thaksin-like power mad person is absent.... so he can run the whole show (and nearly did).

A peoples vote of the PM would basically destroy the parliamentary form and leave the nation even more open to single strong man tyrant rule.

[Thai at Heart]

It is good to ask this question and info on surrounding nations is interesting.... but, the parliamentary form of govt. has an essential part, the choosing of the PM by the parliament, not by the people. In America, that would be like making the President the Majority Leader of the Senate which, in America, would destroy one third of the checks and balances of usa govt structure. ...and insure one party dominance.

The UK Brit parliamentary form was invented because the Members were of the upper crust and not gutter fighters. They were devoted to struggling inside the two party system, one with the other, but finally accepting the MAJORITY RULES concept and going ahead with a mostly working govt. system.

Brit style parliament is terribly suited to emerging democracies because it automatically places only the court in a balancing position, not a good use of Western styled courts and with extended delays for deliberations, would effectively freeze a nation. Further, this form opens the gate for a Thaksin to rise and dominate as the lone, king-like final ruler. In a parliamentary form with a constitution instead of a king, the royal cushion on excessive power on a Thaksin-like power mad person is absent.... so he can run the whole show (and nearly did).

A peoples vote of the PM would basically destroy the parliamentary form and leave the nation even more open to single strong man tyrant rule.

The Brit system works because it reconciles the role of royalty with a democratic system and logically , no presidential role as head of state.

The PM is a member of the COMMONS, by definition not a Lord. I fear Thailand won't ever get democracy right until they smash corruption, thus depoliticising the court system.

[billd766]

Wasn't YL elected by the people? Case closed.

No she was NOT. She was the #1 party list candidate and never stood for any election in her life.

She never stood for a constituency, never went into ANY debate with the opposition at all and was told what to do and say plus where to go by her "advisors" who included her brother, Thaksin.

Case still closed.

[tiled]

Wasn't YL elected by the people? Case closed.

No she wasn't. She was a party list MP. She was then elected PM by the other MPs.

He wants to "close" the "case", because it's an erroneous statement that he's trying to ram through.

[billd766]

It is good to ask this question and info on surrounding nations is interesting.... but, the parliamentary form of govt. has an essential part, the choosing of the PM by the parliament, not by the people. In America, that would be like making the President the Majority Leader of the Senate which, in America, would destroy one third of the checks and balances of usa govt structure. ...and insure one party dominance.

The UK Brit parliamentary form was invented because the Members were of the upper crust and not gutter fighters. They were devoted to struggling inside the two party system, one with the other, but finally accepting the MAJORITY RULES concept and going ahead with a mostly working govt. system.

Brit style parliament is terribly suited to emerging democracies because it automatically places only the court in a balancing position, not a good use of Western styled courts and with extended delays for deliberations, would effectively freeze a nation. Further, this form opens the gate for a Thaksin to rise and dominate as the lone, king-like final ruler. In a parliamentary form with a constitution instead of a king, the royal cushion on excessive power on a Thaksin-like power mad person is absent.... so he can run the whole show (and nearly did).

A peoples vote of the PM would basically destroy the parliamentary form and leave the nation even more open to single strong man tyrant rule.

The Brit system works because it reconciles the role of royalty with a democratic system and logically , no presidential role as head of state.

The PM is a member of the COMMONS, by definition not a Lord. I fear Thailand won't ever get democracy right until they smash corruption, thus depoliticising the court system.

At one time the UK PM was from the House of Lords and it was Lord Dunglass.

He then renounced his peerage and became known as Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home, Baron Home of the Hirsel and served in the House of Commons for many years.

Thank you Google and Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Douglas-Home

Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home, Baron Home of the Hirsel (/ˈhjuːm/), KT, PC (2 July 1903 – 9 October 1995) was a British Conservative politician who served as Prime Minister from October 1963 to October 1964. He is notable for being the last Prime Minister to hold office while being a member of the House of Lords, prior to renouncing his peerage and taking up a seat in the House of Commons for the remainder of his premiership. His reputation, however, rests more on his two spells as the UK's foreign minister than on his brief premiership.

[tiled]

Wasn't YL elected by the people? Case closed.

No she was NOT. She was the #1 party list candidate and never stood for any election in her life.

She never stood for a constituency, never went into ANY debate with the opposition at all and was told what to do and say plus where to go by her "advisors" who included her brother, Thaksin.

Case still closed.

Statements that are not erroneous and therefore the "case" can legitimately and correctly be "closed."

[JOC]

Wait a sec........ I will be right back.......

Just have to call Prayuth, to ask what my opinion is on this!!

[binjalin]

The point is the judiciary and military should stay out of politics

[tiled]

The point is the judiciary and military should stay out of politics

There are multiple layers of separation beyond your point that are not sufficiently in place.

Such as executive branch shouldn't run roughshod over the legislative branch.

[tiled]

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

Wasn't YL elected by the people? Case closed.

No she wasn't. She was a party list MP. She was then elected PM by the other MPs.

The 2007 Constitution required that the PM must be a MP.

Point of order... the "People's Constitution" of 1997 had the exact same requirement.

[Robespiere]

Yingluck would win, so yes, Thailand would be run better if its PM was elected directly by the people.

[billd766]

Yingluck would win, so yes, Thailand would be run better if its PM was elected directly by the people.

What would you think if the PTP won the election but the people chose Abhisit or Suthep to be the PM?

You can swap the PTP for the Democrats and Abhisit/Suthep for Yingluck if you like.

[Wombat6]

The point is the judiciary and military should stay out of politics

And religion !!

[Wombat6]

Yingluck would win, so yes, Thailand would be run better if its PM was elected directly by the people.

Yingluck would win what >>?? the only thing she would win would be a cdmpetition for being the best Puppet of the decade.

[DeaconJohn]

Wasn't YL elected by the people? Case closed.

No she wasn't. She was a party list MP. She was then elected PM by the other MPs.

All bought and paid for by her brother.

[jpeg]

Well if we take how events are currently unfolding on Phuket as a microcosm of the country, I would say it doesn't matter a f#ck. They're ALL at it. Sorry the majority of good people in Thailand. No hope for you now, nor ever.

[See the bears]

If there is an election, Taksin's people will win again and new era of corruption will start. Taksin couldn't buy votes from wealthier and educated Thais in bangkok, but these people are minority. People in the other regions are poorer and less educated, unforetunately, these people are the majority. So Taksin can always buy majority of votes in Thailand if election process remains the same as before.

The vote buying is just another of the establishment's fallacies

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Democrats-outpaced-Pheu-Thai-in-campaign-spending-30173241.html

http://asiancorrespondent.com/116697/vote-buying-thaksin-and-the-democrats/

[ginjag]

Yingluck would win, so yes, Thailand would be run better if its PM was elected directly by the people.

Not now mate not ever, not now all is revealed-your in cloud something land if you HONESTLY think she would win. This has to be todays joke. Chalerm would be a better bet, but then again that would be another joke.

[See the bears]

Yingluck would win, so yes, Thailand would be run better if its PM was elected directly by the people.

Not now mate not ever, not now all is revealed-your in cloud something land if you HONESTLY think she would win. This has to be todays joke. Chalerm would be a better bet, but then again that would be another joke.

What evidence do you have to say she wouldn't? & who would beat her? Your hero Prayuth! That's the joke of the day!

[lungbing]

Would Thailand be run better if its PM was elected directly by the people?

Hasn't this been tried many times with many failures an public uprisings?

Something clearly needs some fixing first.

Uprisings? In plural? In Thailand? Name 2 or more please!!!

Not even during the Japanese occupation there was one.

But I know my Thai history as taught in schools.. Thailand has never been occupied! The Japanese were our guests, armed tourists at the most.

Edited October 27, 2014 by lungbing

[lungbing]

Constantly providing Bangkok with updated infrastructure whilst ignoring most of the rest of the country is just another way of buying Bangkokian's votes. That's what led to the rise of Thaksin style politics. He was sharp enough to recognise and exploit it.

[kaobang]

they will never let it happen or Yingluck will be pm again