Abhisit says no to direct election for PM

[maxme]

with all due respect Sir, its the only way at the moment, any other way will ultimately lead to the same problems as in the past. we are starting to get direction now,

The method of election didn't cause the problems. And really, how would the result be different? The 2011 election would have still most likely seen Yingluck directly elected as PM and PTP in government. How would it fix anything?

Pretty sneaky but there it is nontheless

[MobileContent]

Abhisit should just retire from politics and as well the nut monk that calls himself now a Phra from a Wat in Surat Thani.

It was a big mistake for Chuan Lekpai to bring Mark from Oxford on board. He should go home and let Surin, Supachai or Korn run the show at the Democrat Party.

[waitforusalso]

Given the dubious way he got to be prime minister me thinks he protests too much.

I'm not sure that forming a coalition to get elected PM is that "dubious".

And he's hardly "protesting".

'offers they could not refuse', cobbled together in an army base.............what part is not dubious

Similar to "offers they could not refuse" while in Hong Kong.

No, offers in Hong Kong, would not have been made with the threat of a coup. That is the way politics works, politicians making deals on the negotiation table. Not with soldiers threatening to use their might. By no means was AV's promotion done through a democratic process. You can deny till you are blue in the face, but we all know the facts.

[jdlancaster]

Direct election has the advantage of reducing the power of a political party. Can get competing interests within a party. Would love to see local interests compete against party interests and unholy alliances made. Might even get a prime minister who will disagree with his own party and work with the other,especially if there are term limits, to better the country since his political life will come to an end. If nothing else could make for entertaining disagreements.

[seajae]

again we those that do not understand basic english trying to turn this around, he said he does not support direct elections for the pm and cabinet, ie, people directly voting in a pm then voting in the cabinet ministers(by their popularity not their party)and I agree with him. This way we could end up with total morons as ministers(yl as a treasurer ) as long as they are popular, even pptp & democrat ministers together, ministers need to be able to show they are capable of doing their jobs so are best appointed by the parties, that way at least if they <deleted> up the party is responsible. Besides that, you need people that have enough intelligence to vote this way for the right reasons and logic, it simply wouldnt work here as too many have no idea and do what they are paid to. As for the pm, they are the ones that are heading the individual parties, you elect the party you prefer and they have their head honcho already assigned during the voting. Boy do some of the readers in here need to be able to understand what is written, what a joke.

[seajae]

" He has won several elections for MP.

If Thais were voting for a directly elected PM, and not for the Democrat Party, I think he'd have a reasonable chance.

Ah, so he couldn't win a single general election as the number one party List MP for the democrats, which obviously binjalin was referring to. But he stands a reasonable chance to win a PM election ?

By what logic would that be I wonder. I personally think that as long as the democrats continue to run with Abhisit as their leader, they will not win any general election.

Anyway, if Yingluck would be allowed to run in such a PM election, she would defeat Abhisit by a landslide.

after all the people have really seen how stupid and incapable she really is I doubt it, the reds vote for her because they are paid to, everyone realizes she is not very smart and simply thaksins puppet. They also realize how bad she stuffed up the country in her short time as pm and that she never attended any meetings etc she was supposed to, too busy shopping overseas. I think being a shin is simply not good enough now, even the farmers will not support the shins anymore, they have all realized they were conned by them.

[billsmart]

again we those that do not understand basic english trying to turn this around, he said he does not support direct elections for the pm and cabinet, ie, people directly voting in a pm then voting in the cabinet ministers(by their popularity not their party)and I agree with him. This way we could end up with total morons as ministers(yl as a treasurer ) as long as they are popular, even pptp & democrat ministers together, ministers need to be able to show they are capable of doing their jobs so are best appointed by the parties, that way at least if they <deleted> up the party is responsible. Besides that, you need people that have enough intelligence to vote this way for the right reasons and logic, it simply wouldnt work here as too many have no idea and do what they are paid to. As for the pm, they are the ones that are heading the individual parties, you elect the party you prefer and they have their head honcho already assigned during the voting. Boy do some of the readers in here need to be able to understand what is written, what a joke.

No, the joke is calling a party the Democrat Party when it, and apparently you, have no faith in democracy.

Now I'm not saying you're wrong in what you're implying - that the general public cannot be trusted to elect competent officials. I'm a citizen of the USA and we see this happening over and over again (although the USA is a representative republic in which the representatives are elected democratically. Even the USA does not have even one office that is elected by a nation-wide democratic vote.) What I am saying is that is democracy. If Abhist and his cronies think the same way you do they should change the name of the party to describe better what they are recommending: the Oligarch Party - which favors the rule of the elite.

Kind of sounds like part of the Hunger Games' theme, don't you think?

Edited December 10, 2014 by billsmart

[tonbridgebrit]

Abhisit is saying this, because he knows the Democrats will never win an election.

The Democrats represent Thailand's middle-class. There voter base is made up mainly of Chinese supporters, and a small number of minority groups. These people, collectively, make up a minority group in Thai society, that's why Abhisit will never win an election.

There is something that Abhisit can do, and it will have an impact on Thai society. If Abhisit pulls out of the next general election, and we see an election between Thaksin and the junta, then, Abhisit will not be splitting the anti-Thaksin vote if he pulls out.
Yes, Democrat Party, the biggest impact you'ill have in Thai politics is to NOT take part (do a boycott instead) in a general election. You pulled out of the last general election, but there was no junta to vote for. This time if you pull out, there is the junta that will probably win against Thaksin.

You've pulled out before, maybe you should consider doing it again.

[whybother]

Abhisit is saying this, because he knows the Democrats will never win an election.

The Democrats represent Thailand's middle-class. There voter base is made up mainly of Chinese supporters, and a small number of minority groups. These people, collectively, make up a minority group in Thai society, that's why Abhisit will never win an election.

There is something that Abhisit can do, and it will have an impact on Thai society. If Abhisit pulls out of the next general election, and we see an election between Thaksin and the junta, then, Abhisit will not be splitting the anti-Thaksin vote if he pulls out.

Yes, Democrat Party, the biggest impact you'ill have in Thai politics is to NOT take part (do a boycott instead) in a general election. You pulled out of the last general election, but there was no junta to vote for. This time if you pull out, there is the junta that will probably win against Thaksin.

You've pulled out before, maybe you should consider doing it again.

Yes, there was a huge split of the nti-Thaksin vote between the Democrats and the junta party in 2011, wasn't there. Just a sec, the junta party weren't in the 2011 election, were they? Well there goes your theory then. It won't help that there probably won't be a junta party in the next election either.

[tonbridgebrit]

Abhisit should just retire from politics and as well the nut monk that calls himself now a Phra from a Wat in Surat Thani.

It was a big mistake for Chuan Lekpai to bring Mark from Oxford on board. He should go home and let Surin, Supachai or Korn run the show at the Democrat Party.

I really don't think removing Abhisit will make much of a difference to the Democrat's chances in an election. Most Thais are the rural or urban poor, they're not middle-class, and their lives are very different to the elite (the vast bulk of the elite look the same as Chinese people).

The rural and urban poor will always vote Thaksin rather than Democrat. But if the junta takes part in an election, well, some of the rural and urban poor will vote for the junta if the junta provides subsidies for petrol and diesel, and throw in land reform to distribute land to the poor and landless. And throw in other benefits as well.

[rixalex]

Given the dubious way he got to be prime minister me thinks he protests too much.

I'm not sure that forming a coalition to get elected PM is that "dubious".

And he's hardly "protesting".

'offers they could not refuse', cobbled together in an army base.............what part is not dubious

Similar to "offers they could not refuse" while in Hong Kong.

No, offers in Hong Kong, would not have been made with the threat of a coup. That is the way politics works, politicians making deals on the negotiation table. Not with soldiers threatening to use their might. By no means was AV's promotion done through a democratic process. You can deny till you are blue in the face, but we all know the facts.

What went on behind closed doors will probably never be known. You have assumed that the politicians who were persuaded to form a coalition were coerced with the threat of a coup. It's possible, but it kind of supposes that these politicians, to be scared by the prospect of a coup, were principled men who would do anything to protect democracy, including jumping into bed with people they didn't actually want to. Possible, but likely? I have my doubts. What most Thai politicians I think respond to isn't democracy under threat but rather their slice of the pie in danger of being passed on to the next man. My guess would be that inducements was all it took to swing things in Abhisit's favour. Totally wrong of course but for me it makes little difference who is masterminding it all, be it a politician or be it a general... it's an undemocratic process either way.

Edited December 10, 2014 by rixalex

[tonbridgebrit]

Abhisit is saying this, because he knows the Democrats will never win an election.

The Democrats represent Thailand's middle-class. There voter base is made up mainly of Chinese supporters, and a small number of minority groups. These people, collectively, make up a minority group in Thai society, that's why Abhisit will never win an election.

There is something that Abhisit can do, and it will have an impact on Thai society. If Abhisit pulls out of the next general election, and we see an election between Thaksin and the junta, then, Abhisit will not be splitting the anti-Thaksin vote if he pulls out.

Yes, Democrat Party, the biggest impact you'ill have in Thai politics is to NOT take part (do a boycott instead) in a general election. You pulled out of the last general election, but there was no junta to vote for. This time if you pull out, there is the junta that will probably win against Thaksin.

You've pulled out before, maybe you should consider doing it again.

Yes, there was a huge split of the nti-Thaksin vote between the Democrats and the junta party in 2011, wasn't there. Just a sec, the junta party weren't in the 2011 election, were they? Well there goes your theory then. It won't help that there probably won't be a junta party in the next election either.

Hello Whybother. The junta are in power right now, and it seems like they are trying to do things like 'subsidise diesel and petrol, and distribute land to Thailand's poor and landless'. I think there will be other benefits as well. Also, the junta represents stability, the junta in charge means no more mass demonstrations that cripple Bangkok.

Now then, if the junta and Thaksin and the Democrats take part in the next general election (a three horse race), well, the Democrats are going to split the anti-Thaksin vote. Do you (and Thai people) want to see an election where it will beThaksin against Abhisit, with no junta in the vote ?

What result will this give ? Surely, Thaksin will win again. And then what ? There will be a load of Thais (mainly Chinese middle-class Bangkok people, throw in bus-loads of people from the rural south) with yellow shirts and/or whistles, demonstrating, and bringing Bangkok to a standstill. And this time, the generals might simply laugh and say "we carried out a coup last time to avoid mass demonstrations causing Bangkok to grind to a halt, our time is now over, we're not doing a coup again, you lot sort it out yourselves". Is this a good thing ? Heading back to the bad old days. I think shops and companies in Bangkok are not going to accept/tolerate this nonsense again, and it might turn very ugly.

Okay, what's the way out of this mess ? Simple, we have an election, Abhisit pulls out, it's a race between Thaksin and the junta. Throw in the little boy parties. The junta hands out benefits to Thailand's poor, tell Thailand that if Thaksin wins, well, Bankok will go back to mass demonstrations. This should cause enough Thais to vote for the junta. And, hey presto, the junta becomes the democratically elected government of Thailand.

That way, America and Europe are happy (the junta now becomes democratically elected). Thailand is happy (no mass demonstrations, cheap petrol and diesel for everybody, land given to the poor and landless, throw in some more subsidies, throw in some speeches about nationalism, etc). Everybody is happy. Whose going to complain ??

[Robby nz]

Now theres a guarantee that the PT groupies will support it, anything he says must be wrong in their eyes.

The PM should not be but the cabinet (as I have posted elsewhere) should be elected from people qualified for the job.

That would avoid the farce we saw in the previous administration of 6 cabinet reshuffles and friends and relations given jobs they knew nothing about.

It will be a popularity contest. There will be no guarantee that the elected "cabinet minister" will know anything about what they're elected for.

Having elected MPs put in charge on ministries works in many other countries.

The problem is not that they don't know about the ministry that they're in charge of. The problem is the policies that have been chosen to be implemented by the party.

Who should define policy? The elected cabinet minister or the elected government?

You apparently have not read my post on another topic, It is only my basic idea of how things could work but until I see someone post something that makes an attempt at positivity rather than the usual knocking I see nothing better.

I will post it here for your info.

Before I do I will say that ministers chosen (elected) from a pool of those with specific knowledge of the ministries they apply to be ministers of gives a far better chance of getting expertise in the job than allowing politicians to put their friends and relations in the job.

Topic

Thai opinion: Absolutely democracy can be absolutely unacceptable

The position of minister needs to be considered as a top job rather than a political position, like the CEO of a company.

Applications should be called for from qualified people from both inside and out of politics with them being required to submit their qualifications, CV if you like and their vision for the direction of the ministry they apply for the position of minister of.

Applications would be for only one ministry with qualifications in that field, vision and management ability taken into account.

After the applications details have been checked by a body set up for the purpose then a list of applicants for each ministry is put on a ballot paper with their details, this then goes to the people at a general election.

The ministers would be responsible for carrying out the policies of the Govt in power and would be answerable to the Govt while being in charge of management of their respective ministries.

As this is an untried concept there would be a lot of details to sort out, one as someone pointed out being budgets, but if they are keeping to the Govt's policies this should not be a problem.

There should however be some system of evaluation such as a mid term scorecard, and a means of removing a bad minister within the term of office.

There should be no limit to how long a minister can serve but they will all come up for reelection (if the apply) and are doing a good job and get elected again.

Yes I know it sounds just like another top civil servant but would be more than that, indeed a link between the civil service and Govt who was answerable directly to the people (electorate).

As an addendum.

As things stand there is no requirement for cabinet ministers to be selected from MP's.

Can you tell me how many of the cabinet of the last administration were in fact elected or even list MP's and how many were appointed by 'you know who' ?

[whybother]

Abhisit is saying this, because he knows the Democrats will never win an election.

The Democrats represent Thailand's middle-class. There voter base is made up mainly of Chinese supporters, and a small number of minority groups. These people, collectively, make up a minority group in Thai society, that's why Abhisit will never win an election.

There is something that Abhisit can do, and it will have an impact on Thai society. If Abhisit pulls out of the next general election, and we see an election between Thaksin and the junta, then, Abhisit will not be splitting the anti-Thaksin vote if he pulls out.

Yes, Democrat Party, the biggest impact you'ill have in Thai politics is to NOT take part (do a boycott instead) in a general election. You pulled out of the last general election, but there was no junta to vote for. This time if you pull out, there is the junta that will probably win against Thaksin.

You've pulled out before, maybe you should consider doing it again.

Yes, there was a huge split of the nti-Thaksin vote between the Democrats and the junta party in 2011, wasn't there. Just a sec, the junta party weren't in the 2011 election, were they? Well there goes your theory then. It won't help that there probably won't be a junta party in the next election either.

Hello Whybother. The junta are in power right now, and it seems like they are trying to do things like 'subsidise diesel and petrol, and distribute land to Thailand's poor and landless'. I think there will be other benefits as well. Also, the junta represents stability, the junta in charge means no more mass demonstrations that cripple Bangkok.

Now then, if the junta and Thaksin and the Democrats take part in the next general election (a three horse race), well, the Democrats are going to split the anti-Thaksin vote. Do you (and Thai people) want to see an election where it will beThaksin against Abhisit, with no junta in the vote ?

What result will this give ? Surely, Thaksin will win again. And then what ? There will be a load of Thais (mainly Chinese middle-class Bangkok people, throw in bus-loads of people from the rural south) with yellow shirts and/or whistles, demonstrating, and bringing Bangkok to a standstill. And this time, the generals might simply laugh and say "we carried out a coup last time to avoid mass demonstrations causing Bangkok to grind to a halt, our time is now over, we're not doing a coup again, you lot sort it out yourselves". Is this a good thing ? Heading back to the bad old days. I think shops and companies in Bangkok are not going to accept/tolerate this nonsense again, and it might turn very ugly.

Okay, what's the way out of this mess ? Simple, we have an election, Abhisit pulls out, it's a race between Thaksin and the junta. Throw in the little boy parties. The junta hands out benefits to Thailand's poor, tell Thailand that if Thaksin wins, well, Bankok will go back to mass demonstrations. This should cause enough Thais to vote for the junta. And, hey presto, the junta becomes the democratically elected government of Thailand.

That way, America and Europe are happy (the junta now becomes democratically elected). Thailand is happy (no mass demonstrations, cheap petrol and diesel for everybody, land given to the poor and landless, throw in some more subsidies, throw in some speeches about nationalism, etc). Everybody is happy. Whose going to complain ??

It's a big assumption that the junta will take part in the next election. I don't think that has any chance of happening, and even if it did, I doubt they would get much of the vote.

[waitforusalso]

Given the dubious way he got to be prime minister me thinks he protests too much.

I'm not sure that forming a coalition to get elected PM is that "dubious".

And he's hardly "protesting".

'offers they could not refuse', cobbled together in an army base.............what part is not dubious

Similar to "offers they could not refuse" while in Hong Kong.

No, offers in Hong Kong, would not have been made with the threat of a coup. That is the way politics works, politicians making deals on the negotiation table. Not with soldiers threatening to use their might. By no means was AV's promotion done through a democratic process. You can deny till you are blue in the face, but we all know the facts.

What went on behind closed doors will probably never be known. You have assumed that the politicians who were persuaded to form a coalition were coerced with the threat of a coup. It's possible, but it kind of supposes that these politicians, to be scared by the prospect of a coup, were principled men who would do anything to protect democracy, including jumping into bed with people they didn't actually want to. Possible, but likely? I have my doubts. What most Thai politicians I think respond to isn't democracy under threat but rather their slice of the pie in danger of being passed on to the next man. My guess would be that inducements was all it took to swing things in Abhisit's favour. Totally wrong of course but for me it makes little difference who is masterminding it all, be it a politician or be it a general... it's an undemocratic process either way.

The army said they weren't going to allow a Thaksin led government and that the only way these parties would have a sustainable shot at medium term power was to side with the cockroach party.

[whybother]

Now theres a guarantee that the PT groupies will support it, anything he says must be wrong in their eyes.

The PM should not be but the cabinet (as I have posted elsewhere) should be elected from people qualified for the job.

That would avoid the farce we saw in the previous administration of 6 cabinet reshuffles and friends and relations given jobs they knew nothing about.

It will be a popularity contest. There will be no guarantee that the elected "cabinet minister" will know anything about what they're elected for.

Having elected MPs put in charge on ministries works in many other countries.

The problem is not that they don't know about the ministry that they're in charge of. The problem is the policies that have been chosen to be implemented by the party.

Who should define policy? The elected cabinet minister or the elected government?

You apparently have not read my post on another topic, It is only my basic idea of how things could work but until I see someone post something that makes an attempt at positivity rather than the usual knocking I see nothing better.

I will post it here for your info.

Before I do I will say that ministers chosen (elected) from a pool of those with specific knowledge of the ministries they apply to be ministers of gives a far better chance of getting expertise in the job than allowing politicians to put their friends and relations in the job.

Topic Thai opinion: Absolutely democracy can be absolutely unacceptable

The position of minister needs to be considered as a top job rather than a political position, like the CEO of a company.

Applications should be called for from qualified people from both inside and out of politics with them being required to submit their qualifications, CV if you like and their vision for the direction of the ministry they apply for the position of minister of.

Applications would be for only one ministry with qualifications in that field, vision and management ability taken into account.

After the applications details have been checked by a body set up for the purpose then a list of applicants for each ministry is put on a ballot paper with their details, this then goes to the people at a general election.

The ministers would be responsible for carrying out the policies of the Govt in power and would be answerable to the Govt while being in charge of management of their respective ministries.

As this is an untried concept there would be a lot of details to sort out, one as someone pointed out being budgets, but if they are keeping to the Govt's policies this should not be a problem.

There should however be some system of evaluation such as a mid term scorecard, and a means of removing a bad minister within the term of office.

There should be no limit to how long a minister can serve but they will all come up for reelection (if the apply) and are doing a good job and get elected again.

Yes I know it sounds just like another top civil servant but would be more than that, indeed a link between the civil service and Govt who was answerable directly to the people (electorate).

As an addendum.

As things stand there is no requirement for cabinet ministers to be selected from MP's.

Can you tell me how many of the cabinet of the last administration were in fact elected or even list MP's and how many were appointed by 'you know who' ?

I saw your post and commented on it. I don't think it would work.

Edit: all cabinet ministers were elected MPs, either list or constituency.

Edited December 10, 2014 by whybother

[Robby nz]

again we those that do not understand basic english trying to turn this around, he said he does not support direct elections for the pm and cabinet, ie, people directly voting in a pm then voting in the cabinet ministers(by their popularity not their party)and I agree with him. This way we could end up with total morons as ministers(yl as a treasurer ) as long as they are popular, even pptp & democrat ministers together, ministers need to be able to show they are capable of doing their jobs so are best appointed by the parties, that way at least if they <deleted> up the party is responsible. Besides that, you need people that have enough intelligence to vote this way for the right reasons and logic, it simply wouldnt work here as too many have no idea and do what they are paid to. As for the pm, they are the ones that are heading the individual parties, you elect the party you prefer and they have their head honcho already assigned during the voting. Boy do some of the readers in here need to be able to understand what is written, what a joke.

What makes you think parties will appoint competent people as ministers ?

Tell us how many incompetents were given ministerial positions under the previous administration.

After 6 cabinet reshuffles they were still telling the world they had finally found the best man for the job.

Consider for a start :

A minister of finance who thought it was fine to lie about the economy.

A minister of commerce who now has charges of corruption pending against him.

A deputy minister of agriculture direct from the red stage, fresh from threatening to burn the country to the ground.

A minister of science and technology who had and still has charges of exporting endangered wildlife to be heard against him.

A deputy prime minister and minister of foreign affairs whose only qualification for the job was his relationship with the party owner and the PM.

A minister of the MP's office who is on the US blacklist for business dealings with Mugabe.

And thank the lord for small mercies, a clown like Jutaporn was at one stage considered for a ministerial position, but was by passed.

Feel free to add to the list it is quite long.

[Robby nz]

Now theres a guarantee that the PT groupies will support it, anything he says must be wrong in their eyes.

The PM should not be but the cabinet (as I have posted elsewhere) should be elected from people qualified for the job.

That would avoid the farce we saw in the previous administration of 6 cabinet reshuffles and friends and relations given jobs they knew nothing about.

It will be a popularity contest. There will be no guarantee that the elected "cabinet minister" will know anything about what they're elected for.

Having elected MPs put in charge on ministries works in many other countries.

The problem is not that they don't know about the ministry that they're in charge of. The problem is the policies that have been chosen to be implemented by the party.

Who should define policy? The elected cabinet minister or the elected government?

You apparently have not read my post on another topic, It is only my basic idea of how things could work but until I see someone post something that makes an attempt at positivity rather than the usual knocking I see nothing better.

I will post it here for your info.

Before I do I will say that ministers chosen (elected) from a pool of those with specific knowledge of the ministries they apply to be ministers of gives a far better chance of getting expertise in the job than allowing politicians to put their friends and relations in the job.

Topic Thai opinion: Absolutely democracy can be absolutely unacceptable

The position of minister needs to be considered as a top job rather than a political position, like the CEO of a company.

Applications should be called for from qualified people from both inside and out of politics with them being required to submit their qualifications, CV if you like and their vision for the direction of the ministry they apply for the position of minister of.

Applications would be for only one ministry with qualifications in that field, vision and management ability taken into account.

After the applications details have been checked by a body set up for the purpose then a list of applicants for each ministry is put on a ballot paper with their details, this then goes to the people at a general election.

The ministers would be responsible for carrying out the policies of the Govt in power and would be answerable to the Govt while being in charge of management of their respective ministries.

As this is an untried concept there would be a lot of details to sort out, one as someone pointed out being budgets, but if they are keeping to the Govt's policies this should not be a problem.

There should however be some system of evaluation such as a mid term scorecard, and a means of removing a bad minister within the term of office.

There should be no limit to how long a minister can serve but they will all come up for reelection (if the apply) and are doing a good job and get elected again.

Yes I know it sounds just like another top civil servant but would be more than that, indeed a link between the civil service and Govt who was answerable directly to the people (electorate).

As an addendum.

As things stand there is no requirement for cabinet ministers to be selected from MP's.

Can you tell me how many of the cabinet of the last administration were in fact elected or even list MP's and how many were appointed by 'you know who' ?

I saw your post and commented on it. I don't think it would work.

Edit: all cabinet ministers were elected MPs, either list or constituency.

Possibly you could try and be positive and give us an idea of what you think would work to guarantee ministers who know what they are doing and are not just yes men to a party boss.

[kaobang]

the democrat who feared the democracy,,it will be a nice epitaph

[Robby nz]

Abhisit should just retire from politics and as well the nut monk that calls himself now a Phra from a Wat in Surat Thani.

It was a big mistake for Chuan Lekpai to bring Mark from Oxford on board. He should go home and let Surin, Supachai or Korn run the show at the Democrat Party.

I really don't think removing Abhisit will make much of a difference to the Democrat's chances in an election. Most Thais are the rural or urban poor, they're not middle-class, and their lives are very different to the elite (the vast bulk of the elite look the same as Chinese people).

The rural and urban poor will always vote Thaksin rather than Democrat. But if the junta takes part in an election, well, some of the rural and urban poor will vote for the junta if the junta provides subsidies for petrol and diesel, and throw in land reform to distribute land to the poor and landless. And throw in other benefits as well.

You appear to be a little confused.

You mean the elite Thai of Chinese extraction like Thaksin I presume.

I presume also that you are talking about the urban poor, like the farmers who have been shafted by the rice scheme and are now in deeper debt than ever before, they must love PT for that.

The present Govt isn't providing subsidies for fuel they are removing them, the present drop in fuel prices is due to world oil prices being down.

Do you realize that the only party that has ever made an attempt to introduce land tax (for rich land owners) is the Dems, this proposal was never acted on by the Yingluck Govt but is now being revived by the present administration :

The land tax draft is among the laws the Finance Ministry is proposing the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) for consideration.

If approved, it will push for its enforcement within one year.

The law had already been vetted by the Council of State in 2011 during the Abhisit Vejjajiva government, but was dropped when the House of Representatives was dissolved.

[whybother]

Possibly you could try and be positive and give us an idea of what you think would work to guarantee ministers who know what they are doing and are not just yes men to a party boss.

Politicians don't usually know that much about the ministries. That's why they have Permanent Secretaries.

The way to ensure that you don't have stupid Ministers is not to elect stupid politicians. One of the main problems in Thailand is that the party list system it doesn't really give you much say over which MPs are elected.

If they're going to have a party list, maybe rather than having a single party list vote, the people put the party list MPs in the order they want them.

Electing Ministers will lead to a non-functioning government ... even less functioning than the last government. There are issues if the elected Minister is from a different party than the government. Does he have to follow the government line? Does he have control over the budget? If he does have control over the budget, will the government even give him a budget?

You can't guarantee that elected ministers will know what they're doing. But they're not necessarily supposed to know. They get the information they need from the ministry. They tell the ministry the government policy and how they want it implemented.

Having MPs as ministers basically works in NZ, Aus and the UK. The main problem in Thailand is that because he's the minister, "he's right". No one can tell him that he's wrong. So it isn't the system that's the problem. It's the culture.

[pantareiyingluck]

I support Abhisit (Mark) direct election is subject to abuse and you will get the same old faces putting up their hand and money changing hands faster than a jockey changing speedo's, the old Autocratic brigade will be in their glory and what's more this method certainly puts the average Thai out of the race for leadership ambitions , under the present system they haven't much of a chance , but at least they can try.

Remember Abhisit on Constitution Day 2010? The puppy next to Gen. Prem? Thailand needs real personalities.

[Gonsalviz]

Hit a nerve have we?

[gamini]

C'mon Mark. Give the idea a chance...maybe you could win this time!

Let us hope so. He is the real hope for this country.

[djjamie]

His remarks look to be completely self serving and serving the elites. They are just trying to marginalize the east and north voting blocks. Why doesn't the big sissy live in Isan or Chiang Rai for a year ?

Interesting logic.

The PTP have the exact same stance towards the PM being elected as the Right Honorable Ahbisit does. So the PTP remarks look to be……...????

Pheu Thai, have voiced support for maintaining the system in which the House of Representative elects the prime minister

[djjamie]

Good to see a man with impeccable intelligence, a polished education and a calm demeanor offering constructive criticism to benefit Thai's.

Some will see this as completely disrespecting democracy and not supporting democratic elections. But then the PTP have the same stance? It is not about democratic elections (which is the only principle of democracy the PTP respect). It is about the route the PM takes to holding the position. Through the house of representatives or through direct elections.

Of course the ones that cannot differentiate between the two routes to being PM have highlighted why reform is needed. They have shown they have basically no understanding of democracy. I wish them well on their journey to a greater understanding of democracy and hope it helps them have a broader understanding of what the Right Honorable Ahbisit is talking about.

Of course with his Oxford education it can be a brain overload for the farmer types to understand. Again, which is why reform is needed.

[tonbridgebrit]

Abhisit should just retire from politics and as well the nut monk that calls himself now a Phra from a Wat in Surat Thani.

It was a big mistake for Chuan Lekpai to bring Mark from Oxford on board. He should go home and let Surin, Supachai or Korn run the show at the Democrat Party.

I really don't think removing Abhisit will make much of a difference to the Democrat's chances in an election. Most Thais are the rural or urban poor, they're not middle-class, and their lives are very different to the elite (the vast bulk of the elite look the same as Chinese people).

The rural and urban poor will always vote Thaksin rather than Democrat. But if the junta takes part in an election, well, some of the rural and urban poor will vote for the junta if the junta provides subsidies for petrol and diesel, and throw in land reform to distribute land to the poor and landless. And throw in other benefits as well.

You appear to be a little confused.

You mean the elite Thai of Chinese extraction like Thaksin I presume.

I presume also that you are talking about the urban poor, like the farmers who have been shafted by the rice scheme and are now in deeper debt than ever before, they must love PT for that.

The present Govt isn't providing subsidies for fuel they are removing them, the present drop in fuel prices is due to world oil prices being down.

Do you realize that the only party that has ever made an attempt to introduce land tax (for rich land owners) is the Dems, this proposal was never acted on by the Yingluck Govt but is now being revived by the present administration :

The land tax draft is among the laws the Finance Ministry is proposing the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) for consideration.

If approved, it will push for its enforcement within one year.

The law had already been vetted by the Council of State in 2011 during the Abhisit Vejjajiva government, but was dropped when the House of Representatives was dissolved.

No, Robby nz, I think it's you who is confused ! Keep digging, man.

Why go and say that Thaksin is a Thai of Chinese extraction ? Look, we all know that Thaksin is a Chinese tycoon who ended up running Thailand for about a decade. The elite, they cheer on Abhisit. We all know Abhisit is just as Chinese as Thaksin is, it's just that Thaksin looks more like it. And we all know that the Thai middlle-class is made up mainly of Chinese-Thais, the vast bulk of Thailand's meda-rich is Chinese.

Do you accept that Thaksin's voter base is the people of Isaan, these are the rural poor (the ones who have moved to Bangkok are the urban poor) ? This is an issue already covered by the newspapers.

You wrote "I presume also that you are talking about the urban poor, like the farmers who have been shafted by the rice scheme and are now in deeper debt than ever before, they must love PT for that." Robby, regardless as to whether the rice farmers were scammed or not, it still turns out that Thaksin's voter base is Isaan. Surely, nobody reckons that the people of Isaan are going to turn out and vote for the Democrats ?

Robby, if it was the case that Abhisit and the Democrats are convinced they can win an election, well, they would be jumping up and down calling for an election as soon as reasonably possible !

Anyway, do you feel whether it makes a diffrence or not about Thailand having an election or not ? Let's say the junta in it's present form runs Thailand for the next five years ? How about ten years ? Why bother having an election ? To me, the big reason is, the longer the junta is in power, the longer America and Europe will have down-graded political and economic links with Thailand. It's better for Thailand to have full links with the West and China. That way, Thailand can play China off against the West, (as in Thailand gets the benefits from both China and the West).

That's why, Robby, I'm trying to suggest that we see an election of Thaksin verses the junta. The junta can give benefits to the people of Thailand, and then win an election over Thaksin. And once that thappens, the junta becomes a democratically elected government, and everything will be okay then.

[tonbridgebrit]

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

Good to see a man with impeccable intelligence, a polished education and a calm demeanor offering constructive criticism to benefit Thai's.

Some will see this as completely disrespecting democracy and not supporting democratic elections. But then the PTP have the same stance? It is not about democratic elections (which is the only principle of democracy the PTP respect). It is about the route the PM takes to holding the position. Through the house of representatives or through direct elections.

Of course the ones that cannot differentiate between the two routes to being PM have highlighted why reform is needed. They have shown they have basically no understanding of democracy. I wish them well on their journey to a greater understanding of democracy and hope it helps them have a broader understanding of what the Right Honorable Ahbisit is talking about.

Of course with his Oxford education it can be a brain overload for the farmer types to understand. Again, which is why reform is needed.

Abhisit is saying this, because he knows the Democrats will never win an election.

The Democrats represent Thailand's middle-class. There voter base is made up mainly of Chinese supporters, and a small number of minority groups. These people, collectively, make up a minority group in Thai society, that's why Abhisit will never win an election.

There is something that Abhisit can do, and it will have an impact on Thai society. If Abhisit pulls out of the next general election, and we see an election between Thaksin and the junta, then, Abhisit will not be splitting the anti-Thaksin vote if he pulls out.
Yes, Democrat Party, the biggest impact you'ill have in Thai politics is to NOT take part (do a boycott instead) in a general election. You pulled out of the last general election, but there was no junta to vote for. This time if you pull out, there is the junta that will probably win against Thaksin.

You've pulled out before, maybe you should consider doing it again.

Yes, there was a huge split of the nti-Thaksin vote between the Democrats and the junta party in 2011, wasn't there. Just a sec, the junta party weren't in the 2011 election, were they? Well there goes your theory then. It won't help that there probably won't be a junta party in the next election either.

Hello Whybother. The junta are in power right now, and it seems like they are trying to do things like 'subsidise diesel and petrol, and distribute land to Thailand's poor and landless'. I think there will be other benefits as well. Also, the junta represents stability, the junta in charge means no more mass demonstrations that cripple Bangkok.

Now then, if the junta and Thaksin and the Democrats take part in the next general election (a three horse race), well, the Democrats are going to split the anti-Thaksin vote. Do you (and Thai people) want to see an election where it will beThaksin against Abhisit, with no junta in the vote ?
What result will this give ? Surely, Thaksin will win again. And then what ? There will be a load of Thais (mainly Chinese middle-class Bangkok people, throw in bus-loads of people from the rural south) with yellow shirts and/or whistles, demonstrating, and bringing Bangkok to a standstill. And this time, the generals might simply laugh and say "we carried out a coup last time to avoid mass demonstrations causing Bangkok to grind to a halt, our time is now over, we're not doing a coup again, you lot sort it out yourselves". Is this a good thing ? Heading back to the bad old days. I think shops and companies in Bangkok are not going to accept/tolerate this nonsense again, and it might turn very ugly.

Okay, what's the way out of this mess ? Simple, we have an election, Abhisit pulls out, it's a race between Thaksin and the junta. Throw in the little boy parties. The junta hands out benefits to Thailand's poor, tell Thailand that if Thaksin wins, well, Bankok will go back to mass demonstrations. This should cause enough Thais to vote for the junta. And, hey presto, the junta becomes the democratically elected government of Thailand.

That way, America and Europe are happy (the junta now becomes democratically elected). Thailand is happy (no mass demonstrations, cheap petrol and diesel for everybody, land given to the poor and landless, throw in some more subsidies, throw in some speeches about nationalism, etc). Everybody is happy. Whose going to complain ??

Djjamie, Abhisit's problem is not Abhisit !
Abhisit's problem is, is that he represents a minority group in Thailand. The middle-class (mainly)Chinese-Thais are a minority group. Add in a load of people from the south, they're still a minority. There's far more people in Isaan, where Thaksin's voter base is. That's why Abhisit can never win an election !

[webfact]

CHARTER WRITING
Abhisit opposes directly elected PM, cabinet, warns they could be corrupted by power
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday expressed his opposition to the proposal for direct election of the prime minister and cabinet, saying such an administration could easily be corrupted by power.

The proposal has been reaffirmed by the political reform committee of the National Reform Council (NRC).

Abhisit said he had given his opinion to the Constitution Drafting Committee that the previous political crises had occurred because governments had abused power or used excessive power. He feared that direct election of the prime minister and cabinet, which would separate the executive and legislative powers, would worsen such problems.

He said a directly elected prime minister might cite legitimacy from the people as an excuse to abuse power and it would be more difficult to demand accountability from the government leader.

He also did not see the proposal as addressing the political problems of the past.

"It would be better to find a way to demand accountability for use of excessive power, illegal actions and corrupt deeds from those having political power," Abhisit said.

The former prime minister supported the proposal to use a German-style electoral system but warned that the method was complicated and should be explained clearly to the people on how the number of winners of seats in the House of Representatives are calculated.

The Democrat leader also opposed the proposal by CDC panel chairman Anek Laothamatas regarding a provision for amnesty in the next charter for political offenders. Abhisit said he saw no need for the rush to consider the issue and he feared that if the amnesty issue were taken up for consideration now, the reformers would get bogged down and would not be able to perform other more important tasks.

Meanwhile, CDC spokesman Wutthisarn Tanchai played down the proposal for direct election of the prime minister, saying it had not been finalised by the committee.

He said the CDC would have to hold more hearings and listen to opinions from several sides before the 36 charter drafters would hold discussions to try to finalise the proposals. He said the CDC would begin writing the constitution next month and it would take three months for the draft to take shape.

The spokesman said the CDC would not yet consider the issues of amnesty and a referendum for the draft charter because the timing was not right.

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krue-ngam, who is in charge of the government's legal affairs, said direct election of the entire cabinet was "just a proposal" at the moment.

He added that a number of constitution drafters did not support the idea proposed by the NRC's subcommittee on political reform.

NRC member Paiboon Nititawan yesterday voiced his opposition to the proposal for direct election of the prime minister and other cabinet members. He said increased power for these people resulting from their status as directly elected public office holders would make it more difficult to scrutinise them.

Meanwhile yesterday, Chamnarn Janruang, a political-science academic in Chiang Mai, said he supported the direct election of the prime minister. He said it would strengthen the power of the PM and would discourage coup attempts against the government.

He said the direct election of the prime minister would not undermine the King's power because Thais could differentiate between the government leader and the head of state.

Professor Atthachak Sattayanurak, a lecturer at Chiang Mai University's faculty of humanities, said he did not understand why the NRC panel had proposed the idea. He said problems were caused by some governments in the past having absolute power but the direct election of the prime minister would worsen the situation by further strengthening the hands of the government leader.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Abhisit-opposes-directly-elected-PM-cabinet-warns--30249565.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-11

[terryp]

just like all the other PM's then ..inc this new one , the term meglomaniac is coming to mind