I met Mr Independent

[webfact]

NATION ANALYSIS
CDC at odds over elected PM
KRIS BHROMSUTHI
The Nation

Polls show people want to directly elect the pM but some fear a power struggle between pm and parliament

BANGKOK: -- Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) members are facing both internal and external pressure to approve the proposal to directly elect the prime minister.

The proposal is backed by National Reform Council (NRC) and National Legislative Assembly (NLA) sub-panels, as well as the public and prominent academics institutions such as the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA), King Prajadhipok (KPI)'s Institute and the Council of University Presidents of Thailand (CUPT).

But the CDC subcommittee on political leadership and political institutions has stood firm in their dismissal of a direct election for the prime minister.

Its chairman, Sujit Boonbongkarn, said the sub-panel's members had formed the initial conclusion that the pre-coup parliament system of MPs electing the PM should remain, although with some amendments on senator acquisitions.

The charter drafters' president, Borwornsak Uwanno, also dismissed the proposal, stating that it "doesn't suit Thai culture" because it would initiate the first step towards republicanism.

CDC sources said the charter drafters saw this system as a new and untried idea. As such, they do not want the country to be used as a guinea pig for what they regard as an experiment.

Overwhelming support

On the other hand, the NRC panel on political reform led by Sombat Thamrongthanyawong has formed an initial conclusion in favour of a directly elected PM.

Since then some of the country's respected academic institutions, such as NIDA and KPI, have voice their support for the proposal. CUPT interim president Pradit Wannarat is also backing it.

Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, the public has demonstrated a clear preference towards choosing their PM, as NIDA and Bangkok Poll surveys suggest. The former survey showed 78.5 per cent support for the proposal.

Sombat said: "If we want reform based on people's opinion, then we have to go for a direct election for the PM."

It appears academics and the public want this.

Obstacles and questions

So why are CDC members hesitant to embrace the proposal?

The most obvious answer seems to be that such a system doesn't suit Thai culture, as charter drafter Borwornsak said.

"Thai culture" could be related to three issues including weak regulatory bodies.

Abhisit Vejjajiva, the Democrat Party leader, recently rejected the proposal for a directly elected PM, saying it would worsen the problem of an ineffective regulatory system.

"We should carefully analyse and identify what the key problem is. This [the proposal] doesn't solve the problem at its [root] cause," he said.

Abhisit said having a directly elected PM would make it more difficult for the Opposition to keep the government honest because the prime minister could claim a democratic legitimacy and make it harder to impeach him or her.

Pheu Thai Party was among 23 of the 74 existing political parties that voiced their support for maintaining the scrapped 2007 Constitution's parliamentary system.

Another argument against having a directly elected PM is it could affect the monarchy. From a cultural perspective, Thais revere the monarchy and they may fear the power of a directly elected prime minister and what that could mean for the institution.

Former Pheu Thai MP Udomdej Rattanasatien said: "Although the proposed idea remains under a constitutional monarchy, it is possible that a PM who gains office from a direct election could become very powerful and popular, which might appear to contravene the presence of the monarchy - a very serious issue.

"I do not think the idea of the direct election of a PM is possible in Thailand. Let's consider the fact that we strongly oppose the idea of a presidency."

This issue is linked to the fear many reformers including the CDC hold - the failure of the parliamentary checks-and-balance system will be repeated in the future.

The prime example of that fear might be the Yingluck Shinawatra administration's attempt to pass the blanket amnesty bill - a move that triggered mass protests led by the People's Democratic Reform Committee.

Another historical perspective is that Thailand had been using a parliamentary system similar to those in the UK. By opting to directly elect the prime minister, the Thai parliamentary system would need to make dramatic changes and move towards one similar to the US.

This raises a few important questions, such as: what would be the relationship between the premier and the parliament? In the case that one disagrees with the other, whose agenda would prevail? Would it be the premier, since he or she might claim a democratic mandate from the people?

Also, how would the PM be impeached? He or she would have democratic legitimacy, which would make that process harder. Perhaps the public should be allowed to submit a case for impeachment since they elected the PM.

NRC on political reform chairman Sombat said his panel had identified the failure of the legislature to regulate the executive as a key political problems that must be dealt with.

However, Former Pheu Thai MP Vicharn Minchainant made a fair point. He said that sticking with the 2007 Constitution's parliamentary system - where the leader of the most successful party at an election becomes prime minister - or choosing the new proposal wouldn't make a difference.

"It wouldn't be any different because with the previous system there are only two competing parties, the Democrats and Pheu Thai," he said. "People know which candidate will become the premier if one of these two parties is elected."

People want to pick their own PM

Hence, it could be maintained that despite the backing of several political and academic institutions, the proposal to have a directly elected PM has proved to be divisive. But this proposal should be seriously considered.

Although opponents of the idea have made a substantial point - that it doesn't solve the problem at its root cause, while some people view an overly powerful premier as an unconventional notion considering their reverence of the monarchy.

However, poll results have produced a clear message: the majority of Thais want to take matters to their own hands and elect their premier.

Most certainly, they do not want to see this as a first step to a presidency. Their underlying reason for backing the proposal, one could argue, stems from the increasingly large gap between constituency representation and ordinary people.

Experiences over the past few decades mean there is deep mistrust in politicians for their self-seeking interests, backroom wheeling and dealing, money politics and patronage culture, to name just a few concerns.

Hence, it is not surprising that poll results suggest strong public support for the directly elected PM. And if the junta is sincere in saying that public opinion will be placed at the centre of the reform agenda like other issues - such as decentralisation, the amnesty bill for ordinary political prisoners and the constitution referendum - they should see that it happens.

Last week, Inter-Parliamentary Union secretary general Martin Chungong provided the latest warning for members of the NRC and NLA when he said: "I believe that the reform process underway in Thailand has to give people opportunities to have a say in how their country is run, and give them hope that sustainable solutions can be found."

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/CDC-at-odds-over-elected-PM-30249332.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-08

[Fred Flinstone]

Talk of elections designed to make one think some might occur?

Seeing is believing -

A military state in its infancy use such tactics.

[Mango Bob]

I see no problem with the PM being elected by the people. Too bad the current PM was not elected by the people. As for an elected cabinet I disagree with this. The PM should have the right to choice his/her cabinet with approval of the House and/or Senate.

[kriswillems]

After so many months we're still having martial law.

Now how many decades is it going to take to actually get to an election? Will there ever be an election?

Edited December 7, 2014 by kriswillems

[Robby nz]

A PM should be elected by parliament rather than by direct election for there is always a chance that a direct elected PM may not be aligned with the party in power which will only cause conflict (as per the US at present).

However the list system should be done away with which would mean that a PM would be someone who has stood before the people in an electorate and won their place rather than given a list place for the purpose of being made PM.

Cabinet should be elected from lists of suitably qualified candidates for every ministerial position.

This can be done at the same time as a general election with all candidates applying for the position they are qualified for and presenting a detailed CV and policy statement.

This would avoid the farce we saw with the last administration of replacing cabinet ministers and their deputies at regular intervals with those who, in some instances, had no experience or qualifications for the job.

Senate to stay as at present with part elected and part appointed with the 6 year term remaining.

[chainarong]

Thailand is not mature enough for a direct election like USA , the Westminster system of whoever is the leader of the successful winning team is the P.M. the people have either liked their local member or the party or they like the charismatic leader , the other system is open to corruption with loads of money invested and once again the people will be electing people who have plenty of money no scruples and the ethics of a power hungry rat

[noitom]

Thais can pull it off. They know how to run a democratic country.

[BSJ]

Until people without a university degree can register to be a contender in an election for PM your going to continue to have the usual suspects vying for the top job.

[Tatsujin]

"The most obvious answer seems to be that such a system doesn't suit Thai culture."

Well, perhaps it's time that Thai culture made some changes for once then ... you know, get into a slightly more modern/global way of thinking and doing things ... it doesn't mean you have to lose the good parts of the culture however.

[whybother]

Until people without a university degree can register to be a contender in an election for PM your going to continue to have the usual suspects vying for the top job.

Contenders to be an MP don't have to have a university degree.

I would expect that anyone that is contention to be the PM would have a university degree, and it wouldn't make a difference to the who "usual suspects" are.

[whybother]

A PM should be elected by parliament rather than by direct election for there is always a chance that a direct elected PM may not be aligned with the party in power which will only cause conflict (as per the US at present).

However the list system should be done away with which would mean that a PM would be someone who has stood before the people in an electorate and won their place rather than given a list place for the purpose of being made PM.

Cabinet should be elected from lists of suitably qualified candidates for every ministerial position.

This can be done at the same time as a general election with all candidates applying for the position they are qualified for and presenting a detailed CV and policy statement.

This would avoid the farce we saw with the last administration of replacing cabinet ministers and their deputies at regular intervals with those who, in some instances, had no experience or qualifications for the job.

Senate to stay as at present with part elected and part appointed with the 6 year term remaining.

I don't agree that Cabinet ministers should be elected. The permanent secretaries (ie Department heads) are the ones that should be knowledgeable on the ministry, with the cabinet members there to convey the government policy.

Besides that, there is the logistical issue. What if a cabinet member was elected from an opposition party? Or do people need to elect a possible cabinet from every party that is standing? How do you deal with coalitions?

What happens if an elected cabinet member resigns/gets kicked out/etc? Does there need to be another election?

I agree that the party list should go. All that does is make sure the big players are always at the trough. In Aus, the parties deal with that by putting the top guys in safe seats, but it still means they need to do some work to get elected.

[brfsa2]

Many Thais had been stupid enough to vote for money, and without knowledge for whom they are voting for.

Are they really ready now for a new election?

Have the corrupt top brass elite been rinsed? I guess not yet.

Direct election right now will possibly mean that corruption will take over again.

Thai people need to be educated from their mistake, and I think wihin a year or two it might be possible to have elections after the junta wipe out the corruption with the police and the still remaining thaksins.

Edited December 8, 2014 by brfsa2

[binjalin]

bad idea... PM might not be supported by MP's and how much power the two sides would have? this is setting up for a disaster

[BangkokGastronaut]

Thai democracy is in diapers compared to the US system or Westminster system. An elected PM would be a very bad move. George Orwell wrote in Animal Farm, 'All power corrupts'; and it's been shown time and time again that Thai democracy is too immature to govern itself let alone a country. There are not enough checks and balances and those that are in place are simply undermined. If an elected PM took it upon themselves to make decisions under the guise that 'It's the will of the people', then more trouble is bound to happen. No one person in Thailand should be given such a mandate.

[aussieinthailand]

I say again on this issue, DIDN'T the tax payers just foot the bill for a bunch of people and their family's to go too Scotland as well as other counties to learn all about elections, so was that just another fully paid for holiday by tax payers for what result???

Isn't the PM in a normal democracy chosen by his mates in his party, and not elected by the public, it works ok in other counties so what seems to be the problem, I would guess that most people in Thailand don't understand that they don't elect a PM but merely the party and he is the big kahuna of that party, now if

[Traveling Sailor]

"The charter drafters' president, Borwornsak Uwanno, also dismissed the proposal, stating that it "doesn't suit Thai culture" because it would initiate the first step towards republicanism."

I think that what Borwornsak really means is, the proposal does not suit HIS Thai culture. It obviously suits the large percentage of Thai people who want the change.

The Thai people should be given the opportunity to elect their own PM. And, the PM should be able to pick his/her own cabinet members. They should not be elected or chosen by the congress or house of representatives.

Just my two satang.

[Docno]

There are obviously arguments to be made for both models. My personal feeling, having grown up in parliamentary democracies but paying a lot of attention to US politics, is that elections in the American/presidential system end up being too much about the person... too much of a popularity contest rather than a contest over policies and visions. That happens in parliamentary systems also---Thailand being a fine example---because it's simply 'human nature' to think in terms of leaders rather than abstract concepts, but I think it's more of a problem in presidential systems. Personal opinion only...

[klauskunkel]

They are again missing what's really important. Establish independent oversight institutions to check the government's power, then you can squabble about electing/appointing a PM/President or a monkey in a suit.

[jcisco]

"The most obvious answer seems to be that such a system doesn't suit Thai culture."

Well, perhaps it's time that Thai culture made some changes for once then ... you know, get into a slightly more modern/global way of thinking and doing things ... it doesn't mean you have to lose the good parts of the culture however.

If any Thai person just looks around and takes in all that he can see (in BKK) and notes that most if not all of it is of foreign creation. With that being said, has any of it ever stopped them being Thai even just a one tiny bit.

No, of course it hasn't. did it always suit Thai culture, probably, the foreign technology is easy to accept, ideas not so much. Not matter how successful they are elsewhere or whatever, Thais would rather spend the effort telling each what their culture is and what and what is not Thai. Rather then getting on with it, and moving forward not trying to live in fantasy land, well maybe not fantasy land. but it may as well be.

I am not intending to be a thai basher, my observation and my generalization based on my experience. Unfortunately its not a net positive on this topic .

[billd766]

I see no problem with the PM being elected by the people. Too bad the current PM was not elected by the people. As for an elected cabinet I disagree with this. The PM should have the right to choice his/her cabinet with approval of the House and/or Senate.

Too bad the previous PM was not elected by the people too.

[billd766]

Until people without a university degree can register to be a contender in an election for PM your going to continue to have the usual suspects vying for the top job.

Contenders to be an MP don't have to have a university degree.

I would expect that anyone that is contention to be the PM would have a university degree, and it wouldn't make a difference to the who "usual suspects" are.

Read page 286 of this (which is actually page 10 of 21)

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/01361009.pdf

More information is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_%28Thailand%29

especially the part about those barred from standing

quote

Those specifically barred from being candidates and therefore members of the House are individuals who were: addicted to drugs, declared bankrupt, unable to vote (see voter eligibility below), a former convicted felon (the individual must wait for five years after release to be eligible), removed from public service for being corrupt or incompetent, had assets confiscated due to embezzlement; and finally, the individual must not be a member of the: government or civil service, Senate, local administrations, member of the judiciary or other independent agencies.

[rickirs]

What difference does it make how the PM is chosen?

Gen. Prayuth was able to chose himself as PM. How does that comport with participatory democracy? The fact is that of the 39 constitutional monarchies in the world where the Head of State has no absolute power, only one - Thailand - repeatedly has military coups to change the head of government. At any time the military can exercise its absolute power over the government to effect whatever changes top government that it decides without respect to any democratic process. Until the military has no role in the political process, the manner of selection for Thailand's head of government the prime minister will remain just an electoral curiousity.

[billd766]

I say again on this issue, DIDN'T the tax payers just foot the bill for a bunch of people and their family's to go too Scotland as well as other counties to learn all about elections, so was that just another fully paid for holiday by tax payers for what result???

Isn't the PM in a normal democracy chosen by his mates in his party, and not elected by the public, it works ok in other counties so what seems to be the problem, I would guess that most people in Thailand don't understand that they don't elect a PM but merely the party and he is the big kahuna of that party, now if

No, they didn't.

Unless of course you know more than me and have links to prove it.

[whybother]

I say again on this issue, DIDN'T the tax payers just foot the bill for a bunch of people and their family's to go too Scotland as well as other counties to learn all about elections, so was that just another fully paid for holiday by tax payers for what result???

Isn't the PM in a normal democracy chosen by his mates in his party, and not elected by the public, it works ok in other counties so what seems to be the problem, I would guess that most people in Thailand don't understand that they don't elect a PM but merely the party and he is the big kahuna of that party, now if

No, they didn't.

Unless of course you know more than me and have links to prove it.

I thought they went travelling prior to the Feb election but they went during the Scotland referendum.

Thailand’s Election Commission travel to Scotland to 'learn how to vote'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thailands-election-commission-travel-to-scotland-to-learn-how-to-vote-9744147.html

[CWMcMurray]

Is it just me ?? As I think that conflict between the PM and the legislature is a good thing...

It prevents all kinds of goodies just being rubber stamped through...

It is my opinion that the best times in the US is when the president is from one party and the house is controlled by the other party..

As in most cases, a government that can't get too much done too easily usually works out for the best ..

After all.. Do you think the rice pledging scheme or any of the rest of the nonsense would make it through if PM and house were from different parties?

Edited December 8, 2014 by CWMcMurray