Thai Constitution drafters already floating ideas

[webfact]

Constitution drafters already floating ideas
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- New members of the Constitution Drafting Committee floated several ideas yesterday on how to reform the country so that the new charter helps to reduce the divisive political conflicts seen over the past few years.

Paiboon Nititawan said he would propose a change to the "origin" of Members of Parliament in a bid to empower Thai citizens while limiting the power of political parties.

In the past, members of the House were subject to the power of political parties and did not really represent voters who put them in Parliament.

The 36 members of the CDC would move the country forward, he said, as they were selected from various backgrounds, which would help to make national reform more productive.

Hopefully, changes would be made to several areas, which would help to defuse the ongoing conflict, he said.

Anek Laothamatas said he would propose a coalition-led government to solve the problem of political parties split into two camps.

There was corruption committed by political parties throughout their policies, which had great consequences for the country's economy, he said, so there should be a committee to scrutinise their policies.

Thawilwadee Bureekul said the charter must also reflect the voice of the people, as ideas made by the public were not put in the charter previously.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Constitution-drafters-already-floating-ideas-30246993.html


-- The Nation 2014-11-05

[gk10002000]

Countries that have constitutions that do not give power to the people and that do not give fair representation do not do well. Nor do countries that keep throwing out constitutions via coups.

[Chris Lawrence]

Under a new constitution they have already elected a new government? Bunch of yellow donkey voters if you ask me.

[rickirs]

"Anek Laothamatas said he would propose a coalition-led government to solve the problem of political parties split into two camps."

Are CDC members aware of the rest of the world?

Where a single party has been unable to form a majority government, coalition governments are inevitable. Ten major countries have had coalition governments during their history, among them Japan, India, Germany, Indonesia, Australia, Canada, and the UK. But what the CDC seems to imply is that a coalition government would be formed from political parties REGARDLESS of whether any one party could receive majority support from the electorate!

Even looking at Thailand when the electorate was allowed to vote for members of government, political parties were divided into five to ten camps. Yet, there was no need of a coalition party with one party winning the majority vote of the electorate. The situation has been that a major party is unable to win the majority of the electorate. And that is a problem with that's party ideology that doesn't comport with a majority of the electorate and has no interest in broadening its ideology to attract more votes.

However, as a practical matter for legislative efficiency, a majority party does not always present a monollithic political viewpoint, with members sometime acting independently (ie., "to cross the aisle") to support ideology of minority parties for a bill. Then there is an opportunity to build a coalition to reconcile legislative viewpoints to get bills passed; but this voting coalition lasts only so long as the majority party is splintered.

So it would seem incongruous that for Thailand a permanent coalition-led government is necessary or practical. Unless of course there is a hidden agenda to suppress formation of a majority party, ensure dilution of its ideology, and preserve the power base of an oligarchy.

[rubl]

"Anek Laothamatas said he would propose a coalition-led government to solve the problem of political parties split into two camps."

Are CDC members aware of the rest of the world?

Where a single party has been unable to form a majority government, coalition governments are inevitable. Ten major countries have had coalition governments during their history, among them Japan, India, Germany, Indonesia, Australia, Canada, and the UK. But what the CDC seems to imply is that a coalition government would be formed from political parties REGARDLESS of whether any one party could receive majority support from the electorate!

Even looking at Thailand when the electorate was allowed to vote for members of government, political parties were divided into five to ten camps. Yet, there was no need of a coalition party with one party winning the majority vote of the electorate. The situation has been that a major party is unable to win the majority of the electorate. And that is a problem with that's party ideology that doesn't comport with a majority of the electorate and has no interest in broadening its ideology to attract more votes.

However, as a practical matter for legislative efficiency, a majority party does not always present a monollithic political viewpoint, with members sometime acting independently (ie., "to cross the aisle") to support ideology of minority parties for a bill. Then there is an opportunity to build a coalition to reconcile legislative viewpoints to get bills passed; but this voting coalition lasts only so long as the majority party is splintered.

So it would seem incongruous that for Thailand a permanent coalition-led government is necessary or practical. Unless of course there is a hidden agenda to suppress formation of a majority party, ensure dilution of its ideology, and preserve the power base of an oligarchy.

The CDC is just quoting Thaksin, the guy who profited most from the coup.

A few years ago he said he'd learned that single party governments do not work well in Thailand.

Anyway, in real democracies people are allowed to be diverse enough to make parties with a majority in parliament only a theoretical possibility.

[heybruce]

The usual--pretend that limiting the power or politicians and parties will somehow give more power to the people (have they explained how this works?), and pretend that only politicians are corrupt, not the military or civil service.

[heybruce]

The usual--pretend that limiting the power or of politicians and parties will somehow give more power to the people (have they explained how this works?), and pretend that only politicians are corrupt, not the military or civil service.

Corrected a typo.

[fab4]

"Anek Laothamatas said he would propose a coalition-led government to solve the problem of political parties split into two camps."

Are CDC members aware of the rest of the world?

Where a single party has been unable to form a majority government, coalition governments are inevitable. Ten major countries have had coalition governments during their history, among them Japan, India, Germany, Indonesia, Australia, Canada, and the UK. But what the CDC seems to imply is that a coalition government would be formed from political parties REGARDLESS of whether any one party could receive majority support from the electorate!

Even looking at Thailand when the electorate was allowed to vote for members of government, political parties were divided into five to ten camps. Yet, there was no need of a coalition party with one party winning the majority vote of the electorate. The situation has been that a major party is unable to win the majority of the electorate. And that is a problem with that's party ideology that doesn't comport with a majority of the electorate and has no interest in broadening its ideology to attract more votes.

However, as a practical matter for legislative efficiency, a majority party does not always present a monollithic political viewpoint, with members sometime acting independently (ie., "to cross the aisle") to support ideology of minority parties for a bill. Then there is an opportunity to build a coalition to reconcile legislative viewpoints to get bills passed; but this voting coalition lasts only so long as the majority party is splintered.

So it would seem incongruous that for Thailand a permanent coalition-led government is necessary or practical. Unless of course there is a hidden agenda to suppress formation of a majority party, ensure dilution of its ideology, and preserve the power base of an oligarchy.

The CDC is just quoting Thaksin, the guy who profited most from the coup.

A few years ago he said he'd learned that single party governments do not work well in Thailand.

Anyway, in real democracies people are allowed to be diverse enough to make parties with a majority in parliament only a theoretical possibility.

Ah, so it's Thaksin, again.

OK, rubl, why don't you tell the forum exactly where Thaksin proposed that a necessary reform for Thailand was to have a coalition led government by decree, that is what you're saying isn't it?

Oh, wait a minute, you quoted Thaksin as saying he learned that single party governments do not work well in Thailand and morphed that into a statement about support for compulsory coalition governments to suit your, for want of a better word, "argument". In fact, while you're at it, could you even give us a link to Thaksin saying he learned that single party governments do not work well in Thailand? No?

Precisely..................................

[Chris Lawrence]

"Anek Laothamatas said he would propose a coalition-led government to solve the problem of political parties split into two camps."

Are CDC members aware of the rest of the world?

Where a single party has been unable to form a majority government, coalition governments are inevitable. Ten major countries have had coalition governments during their history, among them Japan, India, Germany, Indonesia, Australia, Canada, and the UK. But what the CDC seems to imply is that a coalition government would be formed from political parties REGARDLESS of whether any one party could receive majority support from the electorate!

Even looking at Thailand when the electorate was allowed to vote for members of government, political parties were divided into five to ten camps. Yet, there was no need of a coalition party with one party winning the majority vote of the electorate. The situation has been that a major party is unable to win the majority of the electorate. And that is a problem with that's party ideology that doesn't comport with a majority of the electorate and has no interest in broadening its ideology to attract more votes.

However, as a practical matter for legislative efficiency, a majority party does not always present a monollithic political viewpoint, with members sometime acting independently (ie., "to cross the aisle") to support ideology of minority parties for a bill. Then there is an opportunity to build a coalition to reconcile legislative viewpoints to get bills passed; but this voting coalition lasts only so long as the majority party is splintered.

So it would seem incongruous that for Thailand a permanent coalition-led government is necessary or practical. Unless of course there is a hidden agenda to suppress formation of a majority party, ensure dilution of its ideology, and preserve the power base of an oligarchy.

The CDC is just quoting Thaksin, the guy who profited most from the coup.

A few years ago he said he'd learned that single party governments do not work well in Thailand.

Anyway, in real democracies people are allowed to be diverse enough to make parties with a majority in parliament only a theoretical possibility.

Ah, so it's Thaksin, again.

OK, rubl, why don't you tell the forum exactly where Thaksin proposed that a necessary reform for Thailand was to have a coalition led government by decree, that is what you're saying isn't it?

Oh, wait a minute, you quoted Thaksin as saying he learned that single party governments do not work well in Thailand and morphed that into a statement about support for compulsory coalition governments to suit your, for want of a better word, "argument". In fact, while you're at it, could you even give us a link to Thaksin saying he learned that single party governments do not work well in Thailand? No?

Precisely..................................

Fab, I don't see were Mr T comes into this? Maybe that is what someone wants you to think?

Thailand, although wants to identify as a democracy, it is really a military run country. The idea of the constitution now, is to shore up one side of the ledger where they(The Elite) had thought their power was becoming diluted.

The only thing Mr T did wrong is that he didn't play ball with the elite; but he is one of them. He went to school with most of the miitary sharing playlunch together. His family and their children are on the local bus run with all the other Ferrari driving elite children. Mr T is only used to divide the less informed in Thailand.

What is happening now is that the control of power is to remain with the people who believe they are the best ones to have this power and control the company.

Is the constitution going to extend rights to trade unions?

Is the constitution going to protect the masses in the legal system?

Will the constitution address the inequalities between male and female? I refer to remarks about western females and the attire which is the reason they are targeted for serious crimes?

Will the constitution look at the rights of cultural diverse groups that don't have political representation? The problems in the south and education inequalities?

What about human rights and the constitution? There is more but what the heck?

Mr T is the smoke screen. He is the one that has created all the problems in Thailand. He is the one hate can be evoked on and manipulated to insight others.

But, while your head is in the BS area, there are some real problem areas that will be overlooked. The majority of the Thai population will not benefit from these changes as much as the elite minority do.

Why has there been the change. Again Thailand is not a democracy as it has this get out of 'a situation if we the elite don't like it' clause in the past constitutions. The military come in and do what they are supposed to do. Take over the country. Suthep is technically broke; but where did all the money come from to run his campaign.

So, corruption is to be eradicated? All that is being done is the most obvious forms are being pushed back, out of sight for the time being. The courts and legal system remain untouched; human trafficking is still out there; no unions in the workforce which would challenge the industrialist poor human resource skills; and the Jet Ski operators are slowly taking their beaches back.

Whoever leads Thailand does so with the threat of another coup or run with the wolves. Mr T has never been the real problem.

Who will be the real winners out of this new constitution? This constitution will offer the Thai masses about the same opportunity as Admire Ratki winning the 2015 Melbourne Cup.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

They better not float their ideas near an airport, unless they want to be executed!

Edited November 5, 2014 by AnotherOneAmerican

[rubl]

"Anek Laothamatas said he would propose a coalition-led government to solve the problem of political parties split into two camps."

Are CDC members aware of the rest of the world?

Where a single party has been unable to form a majority government, coalition governments are inevitable. Ten major countries have had coalition governments during their history, among them Japan, India, Germany, Indonesia, Australia, Canada, and the UK. But what the CDC seems to imply is that a coalition government would be formed from political parties REGARDLESS of whether any one party could receive majority support from the electorate!

Even looking at Thailand when the electorate was allowed to vote for members of government, political parties were divided into five to ten camps. Yet, there was no need of a coalition party with one party winning the majority vote of the electorate. The situation has been that a major party is unable to win the majority of the electorate. And that is a problem with that's party ideology that doesn't comport with a majority of the electorate and has no interest in broadening its ideology to attract more votes.

However, as a practical matter for legislative efficiency, a majority party does not always present a monollithic political viewpoint, with members sometime acting independently (ie., "to cross the aisle") to support ideology of minority parties for a bill. Then there is an opportunity to build a coalition to reconcile legislative viewpoints to get bills passed; but this voting coalition lasts only so long as the majority party is splintered.

So it would seem incongruous that for Thailand a permanent coalition-led government is necessary or practical. Unless of course there is a hidden agenda to suppress formation of a majority party, ensure dilution of its ideology, and preserve the power base of an oligarchy.

The CDC is just quoting Thaksin, the guy who profited most from the coup.

A few years ago he said he'd learned that single party governments do not work well in Thailand.

Anyway, in real democracies people are allowed to be diverse enough to make parties with a majority in parliament only a theoretical possibility.

Ah, so it's Thaksin, again.

OK, rubl, why don't you tell the forum exactly where Thaksin proposed that a necessary reform for Thailand was to have a coalition led government by decree, that is what you're saying isn't it?

Oh, wait a minute, you quoted Thaksin as saying he learned that single party governments do not work well in Thailand and morphed that into a statement about support for compulsory coalition governments to suit your, for want of a better word, "argument". In fact, while you're at it, could you even give us a link to Thaksin saying he learned that single party governments do not work well in Thailand? No?

Precisely..................................

So first you seem to have misread my post, secondly you 'seem' to discover that yourself and lastly you ask a question, suggest some answers, and without me giving an answer before you post the question you already start to condemn me for what you think.

BTW of course Thaksin was a wee bit more condescending

"Q: You seem confident that the Pheu Thai will sweep most House seats. In that case, will the Pheu Thai become the single-party government?

A: I regarded that we made a mistake after the 2005 election. We won up to 377 MPs but we had no coalition partners. A vase full with beautiful flowers will be less beautiful without ferns.

Q: So, the Pheu Thai won't form a single-party government?

A: No. We will work with coalition partners. If we run the country as a single-party government, some groups will be jealous. I believe we can work with two or three parties."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/05/23/national/Yingluck-may-not-be-my-PMs-choice-Thaksin-30155984.html

[Robespiere]

"Thawilwadee Bureekul said the charter must also reflect the voice of the people"

Yet the people have been denied a voice by these unelected, coup appointed, anti-democratic elitist clowns....

Proof that the constitution will not reflect the voice of the people lay in the refusal of these pathetic hacks to submit whatever garbage they produce to a referendum.

[PaullyW]

"Thawilwadee Bureekul said the charter must also reflect the voice of the people"

Yet the people have been denied a voice by these unelected, coup appointed, anti-democratic elitist clowns....

Proof that the constitution will not reflect the voice of the people lay in the refusal of these pathetic hacks to submit whatever garbage they produce to a referendum.

I can only imagine how disorganized the whole process is. People yelling "alai na? alai na? mai cowjai" all day long. Misunderstandings abound. Doing Google searches to take pieces from other constitutions as as it fits their particular motivations.

And, they'll like spend more time on how it looks, the fonts and fonts size and other formatting than they spend on the content.

TIT