Thai charter writing: NRC panel in favour of direct election of Cabinet and PM

[webfact]

CHARTER WRITING
NRC panel in favour of direct election of Cabinet and PM
KRIS BHROMSUTHI
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- A new parliamentary system that has never been seen before in Thailand - separation of the executive and legislative branches where the entire cabinet, including the PM, will be directly elected - was agreed upon by a subcommittee on political reform yesterday.

The National Reform Council (NRC)'s subcommittee on political structure and independent agencies reached the initial conclusion at its meeting yesterday, according to Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, an NRC member who heads the subcommittee. "This is an innovative proposal that has never been seen before in Thai politics," he said, adding that most of the subcommittee members want direct election of the whole set of Cabinet members, including prime minister.

Sombat explained that the system would see a list of members presented to voters in the general election so that the people will know if each of the cabinet candidate deserves their vote.

The NRC member said: "The good thing about this is that if the PM candidate chooses a bad cabinet list, then the people will not vote for him. On the other hand, if a cabinet list is good, people will vote for the list. The PM will not be the only deciding factor to win the electoral vote, but all candidates on the list,"

The general election for cabinet members and members of representatives will be held at the same time but a voter will have to vote for a cabinet list and the representative for his or her constituency.

Sombat said another interesting point that had been raised was the setting up of a National Evaluation Commission. In the past, politicians intervened and influenced the appointments in key public offices. Even police offices are being bought. To solve this problem, a National Evaluation Commission should be set up to regulate any appointments or promotions for all important public offices.

"For example, there should be criteria and required qualification for any candidate who is to be appointed governor or director-general of ministries," Sombat pointed out. He explained that the commission will appoint subcommittee members for each ministry and these subcommittee members will be reshuffled yearly to ensure their neutrality.

Another key task of this commission will be to regulate and evaluate national mega-projects, "whether the money had been efficiently spent and whether it had realised its cause of benefiting the society", he explained. If the commission found the results negative, then it would be their duty to report to the public and pressure the political party to end the project. This can stop politicians from pursuing personal interests in national projects, Sombat claimed.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/NRC-panel-in-favour-of-direct-election-of-Cabinet--30248736.html


-- The Nation 2014-11-28

[ColdSingha]

oh dear, so the thai solution is to allow the people to vote on an approved list of candidates?!

err like Hong Kong?

Edited November 27, 2014 by ColdSingha

[RustBucket]

Crazy idea.

The people will vote for who pays them, or who they think will put more money in their pockets.

I don't think I have met a Thai person in the 5 years I have been here that I can have a political conversation with. They don't know the first thing about politics, they could not even name 3 cabinet members and they certainly won't know what a decent cabinet list would look like.

I'm sorry, but as far as I am concerned... 90% of the electorate are politically ignorant.

[robblok]

If the PM can put on the list who he wants then its a good idea. This would severely hurt the PTP because then the public decides and not the PM so favors and rewards cant be given this way. They have to put their cards on the table first.

The other agency sounds a lot like the national anti corruption agency with extra tasks.

It would again limit the power of a goverment and this is IMHO a good thing. They cant place their own on critical positions to protect themselves. Because politicians should never have power over cops and judges and such. We seen why last time around. When the cops would not find any of the red terrorists killing the protesters because the cops were owned by the goverment.

I like this this would limit corruption from the goverment and their power. This is a hard blow for a corrupt party indeed.

Far less power so cops can do their job and not fear for promotions.

[robblok]

Crazy idea.

The people will vote for who pays them, or who they think will put more money in their pockets.

I don't think I have met a Thai person in the 5 years I have been here that I can have a political conversation with. They don't know the first thing about politics, they could not even name 3 cabinet members and they certainly won't know what a decent cabinet list would look like.

I'm sorry, but as far as I am concerned... 90% of the electorate are politically ignorant.

Not that much different in other countries depends on what circles you move into.

[ExPratt]

I though some now holding power believed that some Thais are too uneducated to vote. So by dramatically over complicating the process with a list endless names to fulfill cabinet posts which many won't have heard of before . Good thinking

Edited November 27, 2014 by ExPratt

[tx22cb]

The current voting form is complicated enough with just 1 vote out of a long list of 40 political parties.

It'll be chaos if the average ignorant voter needs to also vote for ministers at the same time.

[robblok]

The current voting form is complicated enough with just 1 vote out of a long list of 40 political parties.

It'll be chaos if the average ignorant voter needs to also vote for ministers at the same time.

How is this complicated ? If you cant do this then you got no right to vote.

We had similar things in the Netherlands for years where you could vote from many parties and then votes for preferential ministers. Bit different but still doable. We got quite some dumb people in Holland and they managed.

[ramrod711]

BANGKOK: -- A new parliamentary system that has never been seen before in Thailand - separation of the executive and legislative branches where the entire cabinet, including the PM, will be directly elected - was agreed upon by a subcommittee on political reform yesterday.

Theoretically this could work, the devil is in the details. Imagine for instance that the finance minister had not been a member of PTP, but an independent, widely acclaimed financial expert. Would we still have had the rice disaster, or would the finance minister have said; "That is the craziest thing I have ever heard, and I'm having no part of it". On the other hand, the political infighting could prevent anything from getting done, it would all depend on compromise for the good of the country.

[UKCanuk]

It would make a great deal more sense to disbar party list MP's from cabinet positions in my view. Unless a cabinet member has been elected, and in theory accountable to the voters, they should not be in a position of power. Especially if they are taking ear medication.

[ramrod711]

The current voting form is complicated enough with just 1 vote out of a long list of 40 political parties.

It'll be chaos if the average ignorant voter needs to also vote for ministers at the same time.

How is this complicated ? If you cant do this then you got no right to vote.

We had similar things in the Netherlands for years where you could vote from many parties and then votes for preferential ministers. Bit different but still doable. We got quite some dumb people in Holland and they managed.

I would support the Australian way, make everyone vote, fine them if they don't. It might make vote buying obsolete.

[whybother]

The current voting form is complicated enough with just 1 vote out of a long list of 40 political parties.

It'll be chaos if the average ignorant voter needs to also vote for ministers at the same time.

How is this complicated ? If you cant do this then you got no right to vote.

We had similar things in the Netherlands for years where you could vote from many parties and then votes for preferential ministers. Bit different but still doable. We got quite some dumb people in Holland and they managed.

I would support the Australian way, make everyone vote, fine them if they don't. It might make vote buying obsolete.

Voting is already compulsory.

Not sure how it would make vote buying obsolete. People are paid to vote for a particular person/party. They're not just paid to turn up.

[Tatsujin]

Can't be any worse than what they do currently I guess ...

[Baerboxer]

Crazy idea.

The people will vote for who pays them, or who they think will put more money in their pockets.

I don't think I have met a Thai person in the 5 years I have been here that I can have a political conversation with. They don't know the first thing about politics, they could not even name 3 cabinet members and they certainly won't know what a decent cabinet list would look like.

I'm sorry, but as far as I am concerned... 90% of the electorate are politically ignorant.

90% - you always claim it's 90% in favor of any of your ideas, theories and opinions.

90% politically ignorant - how simply rude.

[Baerboxer]

The current voting form is complicated enough with just 1 vote out of a long list of 40 political parties.

It'll be chaos if the average ignorant voter needs to also vote for ministers at the same time.

How is this complicated ? If you cant do this then you got no right to vote.

We had similar things in the Netherlands for years where you could vote from many parties and then votes for preferential ministers. Bit different but still doable. We got quite some dumb people in Holland and they managed.

I would support the Australian way, make everyone vote, fine them if they don't. It might make vote buying obsolete.

And the Australian way has produced some truly remarkable governments and political leaders

[Krataiboy]

The current voting form is complicated enough with just 1 vote out of a long list of 40 political parties.

It'll be chaos if the average ignorant voter needs to also vote for ministers at the same time.

How is this complicated ? If you cant do this then you got no right to vote.

We had similar things in the Netherlands for years where you could vote from many parties and then votes for preferential ministers. Bit different but still doable. We got quite some dumb people in Holland and they managed.

I would support the Australian way, make everyone vote, fine them if they don't. It might make vote buying obsolete.

So that's how you end up with a berk like Tony Abbott.

[khunken]

I don't think they have thought this through fully.

So a PM & cabinet list is presented to voters or will that be multiple lists?

If it's a single list how will they determine if it's acceptable or not? Is there an accept/reject option?

What happens if it is only a single list and is rejected?

Does it preclude future cabinet re-shuffles?

IMO I don't think that this proposal will work - not because Thai voters are too ignorant, I hasten to add - but because it is inherently unworkable.

[Chris Lawrence]

So you have to put a list together? and people will vote for that list?

If that list has very deep pockets then their chances of winning will be increased?

Not sure if it is going to be different to what they have. Deep pockets were the problem before?

[rickirs]

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

If the PM can put on the list who he wants then its a good idea. This would severely hurt the PTP because then the public decides and not the PM so favors and rewards cant be given this way. They have to put their cards on the table first.

The other agency sounds a lot like the national anti corruption agency with extra tasks.

It would again limit the power of a goverment and this is IMHO a good thing. They cant place their own on critical positions to protect themselves. Because politicians should never have power over cops and judges and such. We seen why last time around. When the cops would not find any of the red terrorists killing the protesters because the cops were owned by the goverment.

I like this this would limit corruption from the goverment and their power. This is a hard blow for a corrupt party indeed.

Far less power so cops can do their job and not fear for promotions.

"This would severely hurt the PTP because then the public decides and not the PM"

Aren't you assuming that the PM will not be PTP? If the PTP has equal opportunity to get their PM candidate elected, a PM list of cabinet members should benefit them as well. But I doubt the CDC/NLA/NCPO will allow PTP to exist as a political party in any event.

[tbthailand]

Crazy idea.

The people will vote for who pays them, or who they think will put more money in their pockets.

I don't think I have met a Thai person in the 5 years I have been here that I can have a political conversation with. They don't know the first thing about politics, they could not even name 3 cabinet members and they certainly won't know what a decent cabinet list would look like.

I'm sorry, but as far as I am concerned... 90% of the electorate are politically ignorant.

I'm sorry, but as far as I am concerned... 90% of the electorate are politically ignorant.

with all due respect, where is that different?

[tbthailand]

looks like the ideas are going in the expected direction. More unelected (ie: elite-controllable) AKA 'independent' functions to monitor elected officials and to functionally usurp responsibility from the people.

Interesting to see the trial balloon of separating the legislative and executive functions. Personally I wonder if they will eventually move to an appointed PM or have a half-appointed Senate 'elect' the PM, etc, etc, ...

[rickirs]

Ideas so innovative they boggle the mind.

"... a list of members presented to voters in the general election so that the people will know if each of the cabinet candidate deserves their vote."

There are now about 31-33 cabinet members. If there are just three PM candidates, the electorate must vote on each of the 93 cabinet candidates. To actually examine each cabinet candidate and take the time at the ballot to vote is an unreasonable expectation.The NRC seems to recognize that reality as it says that if a PM candidate puts together a really good list (however "good" is defined"), the candidate PM will also receive the same support from the public that it would theoretically give each cabinet candidate. While direct election of a president or PM is not a precedent in democratic countries (ie., South Korea), the idea of voting individually on proposed individual cabinet members is not (ie., South Korea).

And will there be a chance that a PM of one party gets a multiple party 30+ member cabinet having no common ideology with the PM? The NRC seems to think not, almost as a natural consequence. But this is about drafting a new constitution. Shouldn't its provisions not be based on assumptions as to how the electorate will preceive candidates and vote? It needs to provide an all-inclusive framework for elections regardless of any political outcome. Direct election of cabinet members is a sure path to strangulation of government leadership, not to mention the potential for unlimited charges of dereliction of duty between all members of the executive branch when concensus fails.