McConnell called Trump "ill-tempered" "stupid" and a “despicable human being”

[webfact]

NATION ANALYSIS
Tough times ahead as the NLA must decide on contentious issues
Prapasri Osathanon
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- THE National Legislative Assembly (NLA) may not have come out with flying colours for its performance in its initial four months - and the next period will be even more of a test given decisions will be required for contentious issues such as the impeachment of top politicians and an amnesty bill.

But for now, the NLA may deserve credit for passing more than 30 bills in a relatively short time.

NLA president Pornpetch Wichitcholchai has already given the assembly an A-grade for that, even though some of the bills that were passed were proposed during the previous government and may not produce as far-reaching results as the upcoming bills that will get the media spotlight.

The bills being initiated by the Prayut administration, which society has put high hopes on, are ones that politicians and lawmakers in normal circumstances would not dare to push. We are talking about laws that will tax the rich, wealthy property owners and inheritance tax laws - the key to bridging the income gap and bringing about social and economic equality. In

normal times, politicians in any administration just want to keep the status quo and do nothing to affect people who they owe political, financial or personal debts.

Another law sponsored by the Prayut government is on gatherings in public places, which could have a big impact on the protesters. The PM has said this law is needed to ensure that governments have a proper tool to deal with protesters.

Although the NLA president has denied criticism that the assembly is just a rubber stamp for the junta, he cannot deny that more than half of MPs are military officials. Clear proof that military men in the assembly had to "toe the line" presented itself two weeks ago during a two-hour legal training for NLA members by Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam. He was quoted as saying that "getting on board of Pae's boat (referring to the PM), you must comply with Pae's decision, or you will be expelled from the boat".

The NLA has already established an iron rule to prevent fallout from incidents when the assembly lacks a quorum and key bills fail to be passed. This is a lesson learned from the NLA in 2006. NLA member Jetn Siratharanont said many NLA members were top officials who had their normal routines to carry out, so they must manage their time well or they would miss NLA meetings and be disqualified as members.

Member Wallop Tangkananurak said one of the weaknesses of the NLA was that since half were military, they were not legal specialists - but their strength was their good discipline. "They have adjusted by doing homework and looking into each bill before deliberation."

Although the assembly had lost the balance when it was rocked by criticism over its flip-flop decisions on whether to impeach former Parliament President Somsak Kiatsuranont, and former Senate Speaker Nikom Wairatchapanich over a constitutional offence, it has quickly gained leverage and deferred the issue for voting early next year.

The result of impeachment

proceedings against ex-PM Yingluck Shinawatra over the rice-pledging scheme is expected in February. If given a green light from the top, it is certain that with more than 100 votes of the military members plus the anti-Thaksin camp in the assembly, Yingluck would be impeached. But this would be the case only if there was no "undercurrent" in the NLA. The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) has dispatched General Noppadol Inthapanya, NCPO adviser, to lobby military members to toe the line. It seemed to work in the beginning, but total unity is now questionable.

With controversial issues up for votes - ranging from the amnesty bill, to the impeachment and the bills that affect the powerful and the wealthy - the NLA still has a long way to prove that it can work in the country's interest and not just to follow the order of top bosses.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Tough-times-ahead-as-the-NLA-must-decide-on-conten-30249330.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-08

[chainarong]

Over half of the NLA members are military personal , that in itself would indicate that it is run by the Junta for the Junta and no matter what kind of spiel is placed on it this B/S will continue, the only decisions that will be passed are what the Junta wants passed

[ramrod711]

Over half of the NLA members are military personal , that in itself would indicate that it is run by the Junta for the Junta and no matter what kind of spiel is placed on it this B/S will continue, the only decisions that will be passed are what the Junta wants passed

Same same, but different, remember "Thaksin thinks PTP acts"? They acted on the orders of one man as well.

[Tatsujin]

What's that old saying? ... "Welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss" ... ?

[billd766]

Over half of the NLA members are military personal , that in itself would indicate that it is run by the Junta for the Junta and no matter what kind of spiel is placed on it this B/S will continue, the only decisions that will be passed are what the Junta wants passed

You could have said the same about the former PTP government and Thaksin Shinawatra and you wouldn't be wrong.

[cocopops]

Over half of the NLA members are military personal , that in itself would indicate that it is run by the Junta for the Junta and no matter what kind of spiel is placed on it this B/S will continue, the only decisions that will be passed are what the Junta wants passed

Same same, but different, remember "Thaksin thinks PTP acts"? They acted on the orders of one man as well.

It's true that democratic parties attempt to present a veneer of unity to the public. And it is also true that both publicly visible leaders and power-brokers excercise much control over their party members.

The key difference is what happens if party members rebel. This article implies that in the current scenario, the military NLA members may simply be replaced if they fail to toe the party line. In a democratic system, an MP who finds the leaders policy unacceptable and breaks with his party remains in the house to represent his or her constituents until the next election. At which point those constituents judge the MP's actions and decide whether or not to retain him or her as their representative.

See the key difference? Both democracy and other systems produce leaders that call the shots, but in a democracy the leaders are kept in line as they depend on the support of their followers.

This works at a national level as well - not just within the party. A democratically elected government that makes sufficiently unpopular decisions may be forced to resign by the people. At which point, if they wish to continue, they are obliged to seek a new mandate from the electorate. In this way democracy ensures that we don't end up with a government that is either oppressive or batsheet insane, even if it cannot ensure that things are perfect. No other system features this advantage.

Edited December 8, 2014 by cocopops

[ramrod711]

Over half of the NLA members are military personal , that in itself would indicate that it is run by the Junta for the Junta and no matter what kind of spiel is placed on it this B/S will continue, the only decisions that will be passed are what the Junta wants passed

Same same, but different, remember "Thaksin thinks PTP acts"? They acted on the orders of one man as well.

It's true that democratic parties attempt to present a veneer of unity to the public. And it is also true that both publicly visible leaders and power-brokers excercise much control over their party members.

The key difference is what happens if party members rebel. This article implies that in the current scenario, the military NLA members may simply be replaced if they fail to toe the party line. In a democratic system, an MP who finds the leaders policy unacceptable and breaks with his party remains in the house to represent his or her constituents until the next election. At which point those constituents judge the MP's actions and decide whether or not to retain him or her as their representative.

See the key difference? Both democracy and other systems produce leaders that call the shots, but in a democracy the leaders are kept in line as they depend on the support of their followers.

This works at a national level as well - not just within the party. A democratically elected government that makes sufficiently unpopular decisions may be forced to resign by the people. At which point, if they wish to continue, they are obliged to seek a new mandate from the electorate. In this way democracy ensures that we don't end up with a government that is either oppressive or batsheet insane, even if it cannot ensure that things are perfect. No other system features this advantage.

In a democratic system, an MP who finds the leaders policy unacceptable and breaks with his party remains in the house to represent his or her constituents until the next election.

I knew this would arise, in most countries you would be right. In Thailand it doesn't really apply because MPs here don't have any idea about representing their constituents. With the party list system, they only have to please the boss.

[rickirs]

“Although the NLA president has denied criticism that the assembly is just a rubber stamp for the junta, he cannot deny that more than half of MPs are military officials.”

Furthermore, 100% of the members were selected and appointed by the Junta. And with regards to NLA’s legislative performance:

- How many bills failed to pass?

- How many bills passed after only the first reading?

- How many bills submitted by the NCPO/PM were rejected by the NLA?

- How many bills were referred back NCPO for rewrite?

- How many bills originated solely by the NLA (excluding previous government bills)?

The only thing creative about the NLA is the tortuous efforts it makes to show it is really a democratic institution acting with the support of the Public. Even the news media “The Nation” refers to the NLA as a rubber stamp for NCPO. Frankly, the NLA is a waste of taxpayer funds.

[cocopops]

Over half of the NLA members are military personal , that in itself would indicate that it is run by the Junta for the Junta and no matter what kind of spiel is placed on it this B/S will continue, the only decisions that will be passed are what the Junta wants passed

Same same, but different, remember "Thaksin thinks PTP acts"? They acted on the orders of one man as well.

It's true that democratic parties attempt to present a veneer of unity to the public. And it is also true that both publicly visible leaders and power-brokers excercise much control over their party members.

The key difference is what happens if party members rebel. This article implies that in the current scenario, the military NLA members may simply be replaced if they fail to toe the party line. In a democratic system, an MP who finds the leaders policy unacceptable and breaks with his party remains in the house to represent his or her constituents until the next election. At which point those constituents judge the MP's actions and decide whether or not to retain him or her as their representative.

See the key difference? Both democracy and other systems produce leaders that call the shots, but in a democracy the leaders are kept in line as they depend on the support of their followers.

This works at a national level as well - not just within the party. A democratically elected government that makes sufficiently unpopular decisions may be forced to resign by the people. At which point, if they wish to continue, they are obliged to seek a new mandate from the electorate. In this way democracy ensures that we don't end up with a government that is either oppressive or batsheet insane, even if it cannot ensure that things are perfect. No other system features this advantage.

In a democratic system, an MP who finds the leaders policy unacceptable and breaks with his party remains in the house to represent his or her constituents until the next election.

I knew this would arise, in most countries you would be right. In Thailand it doesn't really apply because MPs here don't have any idea about representing their constituents. With the party list system, they only have to please the boss.

Under the previous constitution, there were three times as many constituent MPs as there were party list MPs...

Anyhow, your point is a fair one, but I don't think it's specific to Thailand's earlier attempts at democracy. In any democratic country, the number of MPs who are personally well known and popular enough to successfully break with a political party and then come back and win their seat as an independent or another party's candidate must these days be very small. Actually rebelling against the leadership in parliament must surely spell the end of most political careers. So the leadership's power is of course significant, but not absolute.

But we needn't get so dramatic. What I'm saying is that the democratic system forces the leadership to permit and pay attention to dissenting voices within the ruling party, even if it's not visible from outside. Since otherwise, if the dissenting voices grow sufficiently numerous or agitated, they may become capable of forming a breakaway party or replacing the leadership. And of course some may actually take the nuclear option of publicly rebelling against the boss - even if it does spell the end of their political careers.

And this is advantage. A check or balance if you will.

Edited December 8, 2014 by cocopops

[LazarusRising]

These unelected bozos couldn't even buy a few microphones.