Abhisit says no to direct election for PM

[whybother]

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

Who? What? When?

[oneday]

And just who is to say any given person would not be corrupted by power? This an incredibly stupid statement by someone who is already drunk with power. Mr. Abhisit - this is why a country's constitution is carefully crafted to create a balance of power between the various branches of the government to keep each one in check. Without the government being directly elected by the people you DO NOT have Democracy.

[whybother]

And just who is to say any given person would not be corrupted by power? This an incredibly stupid statement by someone who is already drunk with power. Mr. Abhisit - this is why a country's constitution is carefully crafted to create a balance of power between the various branches of the government to keep each one in check. Without the government being directly elected by the people you DO NOT have Democracy.

He is not saying that the government should not be directly elected by the people. He is saying the PM should not be directly elected.

With the system at the moment (Westminster, used in UK, Aus, NZ-I think), the people directly elect MPs and then the MPs elect the PM. What is being suggested, and what Abhisit doesn't agree with, is that the people directly elect the PM - similar to how the US President is elected (except the use the collegiate system which screws that up).

[rubl]

Is there any country where both parliament AND PM (as in Prime Minister) are directly elected by the electorate?

[2fishin2]

Is there any country where both parliament AND PM (as in Prime Minister) are directly elected by the electorate?

The United States of America

[rubl]

Is there any country where both parliament AND PM (as in Prime Minister) are directly elected by the electorate?

The United States of America

The USA has a President, not a Prime Minister

Edited December 11, 2014 by rubl

[2fishin2]

Is there any country where both parliament AND PM (as in Prime Minister) are directly elected by the electorate?

The United States of America

The USA has a President, not a Prime Minister

Semantics....same.

[binjalin]

Is there any country where both parliament AND PM (as in Prime Minister) are directly elected by the electorate?

The United States of America

The USA has a President, not a Prime Minister

Semantics....same.

not really the same... but Rubl's first question was the right one (amazingly) - is there any country? or is this going to be another demo of "Thainess" like the "Ebola Cure" another show of "we know best and you all don't understand us"

it's a recipe for disaster

Edited December 11, 2014 by binjalin

[binjalin]

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 ?

How is it self serving? He would actually have a reasonable chance of being elected PM if it was a direct election.

not a hope... Thais will vote again for what they really want it will just take time and anti-democrat Abhisit will never be what Thais want (and has never won a single election)

"and has never won a single election" 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.

I liked Abhisit, at first, I thought here is a man who 'could be' a real leader and a man of principal

Later he demonstrated that his 'principals' could be bought by Suthep and the Big D - he stayed MUTE and even went round blowing his whistle, Jiminy Cricket Style, but without the 'conscience part'

He showed abject lack of leadership when it really counted a leader of a Democratic Party that did not defend Democracy and so he comes across as a man of straw and the electorate, I believe, would never vote for him as PM

We need an Aung San Suu Kyi, a Ghandi or a Mandela but Thailand has none and THAT is it's tragedy but for sure Abhisit is not in the same league

Edited December 11, 2014 by binjalin

[ThaiUser]

“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.”

How could it be different to an election were a party is elected by the majority of people with the party leadership deciding the party policy. A direct elected government still would be subject to the check and balances that a constitution should provide and a parliament that scrutinises the action of the government. Laws to be written into the statues still would require the approval of the parliament and the senate before being passed on to his Majesty the King. The most important item we shouldn’t forget is that Thailand is a monarchy and the monarch has to sign laws into effect or he can refuse to do so.

If we take a look at the US where the President is head of state and also represents the executive, even there after being elected by the people it is impossible for the President to work without the consent of the Congress (House of Representatives and Senate). No matter how popular a President is it seems that people when it comes to vote for the representatives they are inclined not to choose personality but the politics the person to be elected stands for. The US is a good example with periods in the past were a Democratic President had to face a republican controlled congress and visa versa. It required compromise on both sides to pass legislation.

Today the discussion in the US is about executives orders and if they can circumvent laws or even become laws. The US constitution is very clear on it and states that all law making power is invested with Congress; not 99.9% but 100%. Which means, that any executive order that bypasses the constitution or is in violation of it might lead to an impeachment to the executive (President).

It might be actually a good idea for my country to have a direct elected government and a parliament and senate that is based on a different set of elections. A charismatic leader like Thaksin might be elected directly but the party might get less votes if people look at the politics and the vote for parliament/senate might look different.

[jayboy]

And just who is to say any given person would not be corrupted by power? This an incredibly stupid statement by someone who is already drunk with power. Mr. Abhisit - this is why a country's constitution is carefully crafted to create a balance of power between the various branches of the government to keep each one in check. Without the government being directly elected by the people you DO NOT have Democracy.

He is not saying that the government should not be directly elected by the people. He is saying the PM should not be directly elected.

With the system at the moment (Westminster, used in UK, Aus, NZ-I think), the people directly elect MPs and then the MPs elect the PM. What is being suggested, and what Abhisit doesn't agree with, is that the people directly elect the PM - similar to how the US President is elected (except the use the collegiate system which screws that up).

You seem to completely misunderstand the Westminster system.It is based on political parties.After a general election the leader of the party with the largest number of MPs seeks to form a majority in the House of Commons.If he can do so he seeks the monarch's permission to form a government either with MPs of his own party only or if necessary in a coalition with another party/parties.The monarch's role is symbolic but crucial - he/she must appoint as PM the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons.The Prime Minister contrary to your schoolboy howler is not elected by MPs.He is however elected by members of his party prior to the election:the party members may or not be MPs - it depends on the rules of the political party concerned.Once a PM has formed a government he needs to ensure he can carry a majority in the House of Commons.

I agree with Khun Abhisit's objection.There is however a practical sense in which the PM is in fact directly elected.By this I mean that he presents himself a a Prime Ministerial figure in the campaign before a general election (because he is party leader).The electorate knows that if it chooses that particular party its leader will be PM.That is an extremely important consideration in the voters' minds.Furthermore it gives the PM a legitimacy given that the electorate have endorsed him.Thus in the circumstances when a PM takes office (eg the resignation or death of an incumbent) without such direct electoral endorsement there is a need to recharge the mandate by calling another general election - even if he can still command a majority in the House of Commons.To be clear this recharging of the mandate is not a constitutional necessity but a practical requirement as to delay unduly sees political influence drain away.

Turning to Thailand that is why Khun Yingluck had moral standing after a healthy electoral mandate and Khun Abhisit after the corrupt/grimy backdoor dealing really had very little.I know this reality is unwelcome to some but it's no more than the simple truth.The way to unearth these people is to watch for their spouting ignorant nonsense about MPs electing the PM.

[whybother]

You seem to completely misunderstand the Westminster system.It is based on political parties.After a general election the leader of the party with the largest number of MPs seeks to form a majority in the House of Commons.If he can do so he seeks the monarch's permission to form a government either with MPs of his own party only or if necessary in a coalition with another party/parties.The monarch's role is symbolic but crucial - he/she must appoint as PM the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons.The Prime Minister contrary to your schoolboy howler is not elected by MPs.He is however elected by members of his party prior to the election:the party members may or not be MPs - it depends on the rules of the political party concerned.Once a PM has formed a government he needs to ensure he can carry a majority in the House of Commons.

<snip>

That is a complete crock of sh11.

The PM IS elected by a majority the MPs. That's how the head of state knows that he can carry a majority of support in government.

It just happens that he is most often the leader of the party (elected by the party members) with the most MPs in parliament. But that could change during the term of the parliament (example Rudd and Gillard in Aus) and where defections lead to governments losing their majority support.

And it isn't necessarily the the party with the largest number of MPs that gets to form government. Look at many Australian Liberal governments for examples of that, and even a recent UK election.

And obviously Abhisit being elected PM is a perfect example of how wrong you are. Regardless of how his coalition was formed, he was elected PM in parliament by a majority of MPs.

I can't believe a condescending know-it-all such as yourself can make such a basic mistake.

Edited December 11, 2014 by whybother

[jayboy]

You seem to completely misunderstand the Westminster system.It is based on political parties.After a general election the leader of the party with the largest number of MPs seeks to form a majority in the House of Commons.If he can do so he seeks the monarch's permission to form a government either with MPs of his own party only or if necessary in a coalition with another party/parties.The monarch's role is symbolic but crucial - he/she must appoint as PM the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons.The Prime Minister contrary to your schoolboy howler is not elected by MPs.He is however elected by members of his party prior to the election:the party members may or not be MPs - it depends on the rules of the political party concerned.Once a PM has formed a government he needs to ensure he can carry a majority in the House of Commons.

<snip>

That is a complete crock of sh11.

The PM IS elected by a majority the MPs. That's how the head of state knows that he can carry a majority of support in government.

It just happens that he is most often the leader of the party (elected by the party members) with the most MPs in parliament. But that could change during the term of the parliament (example Rudd and Gillard in Aus) and where defections lead to governments losing their majority support.

And it isn't necessarily the the party with the largest number of MPs that gets to form government. Look at many Australian Liberal governments for examples of that, and even a recent UK election.

And obviously Abhisit being elected PM is a perfect example of how wrong you are. Regardless of how his coalition was formed, he was elected PM in parliament by a majority of MPs.

I can't believe a condescending know-it-all such as yourself can make such a basic mistake.

I knew you would react badly to cold hard true facts which don't fit in with your narrative.

You are however utterly mistaken.Under the Westminster model the PM is not elected by MPs.The system is precisely as I describe it.Shall I repeat that for you since you keep repeating your folly? The PM under the Westminster model is NOT elected by MPs.

You are therefore also incorrect on the monarch's role.There is no election by MPs before the PM is invited to form a government and the monarch thus has a certain amount of discretion.An example was in 1964 where the monarch asked Sir Alec Douglas Home (there were others she could have asked) to form a government.In practice the monarch will ask the party leader with the most seats

Of course the PM needs to retain House of Commons support.If he can't - defections etc - he needs to call an election or hand over to someone who can keep the support of the House.In the latter event a general election is needed before long for reasons explained in my last post.

Obviously your objective is to give Abhisit some legitimacy given the grimy and corrupt way he was propelled to office.Save your breath.I know the parliamentary system a great deal better than you and I'm aware his assumption of office was legitimate - even though unlike Yingluck the Thai people have never electorally placed their confidence in him.The contrast between his shady manoeverings and Yingluck's clear legitimacy (moral and political) is obviously what has prompted your ignorant and incoherent post.

Edited December 11, 2014 by jayboy

[RustBucket]

It doesn't matter HOW the senate, cabinet or PM is put into place..... They will always be corrupted. That is as sure as god made little green apples.

All they need to do is have the corruption monitored and all political perps of corruption slammed into a prison cell for 20 years with their assets and that of their entire family removed.

Its not the route to power that is wrong, it is the absolute impunity they have in office.

[chotthee]

Mark is smart.

Direct PM erection would only mean that Prayuth will be erected, as he is the current favorite of all time. Last heard is 97.6% approval rating by some sauces.

[2fishin2]

Is there any country where both parliament AND PM (as in Prime Minister) are directly elected by the electorate?

The United States of America

The USA has a President, not a Prime Minister

Semantics....same.

not really the same... but Rubl's first question was the right one (amazingly) - is there any country? or is this going to be another demo of "Thainess" like the "Ebola Cure" another show of "we know best and you all don't understand us"

it's a recipe for disaster

Semantics.

In the US the government is elected by the people:

President = PM

Congress = Parliament

Or is that not the "answer" you want it to be? SMH

[rubl]

... ...

Turning to Thailand that is why Khun Yingluck had moral standing after a healthy electoral mandate and Khun Abhisit after the corrupt/grimy backdoor dealing really had very little.I know this reality is unwelcome to some but it's no more than the simple truth.The way to unearth these people is to watch for their spouting ignorant nonsense about MPs electing the PM.

With Abhisit 'favoured' by the Military in December 2008 and Ms. Yingluck selected by her brother, I'm really surprised you mention 'moral standing'.

Anyway we were discussion the pro and cons of letting the electorate elect a PM directly. Personally I think that IF that would be done, a lot of the rules and regulations on parliament, right/duties of MP, PM, cabinet members and lots of other things would need to be amended as well to make things fit.

As it is the PM as elected MP can vote in parliament, a voter elected PM could not. MPs selected by the PM for his/her cabinet can vote in parliament unless they relinquish their seat (or unless there's a case of 'conflict of interest'). If a PM is voter elected (s)he must also be able to select the cabinet otherwise the PM position would be hollow. A cabinet directly elected could created traumatic situations (in principle) and is therefor to be avoided.

Conclusion seems to be the continue with the cureent system, but maybe add some extra checks and balances. Strictly speaking with 'democratic' minded MPs extra measures may not be necessary.

[jayboy]

... ...

Turning to Thailand that is why Khun Yingluck had moral standing after a healthy electoral mandate and Khun Abhisit after the corrupt/grimy backdoor dealing really had very little.I know this reality is unwelcome to some but it's no more than the simple truth.The way to unearth these people is to watch for their spouting ignorant nonsense about MPs electing the PM.

With Abhisit 'favoured' by the Military in December 2008 and Ms. Yingluck selected by her brother, I'm really surprised you mention 'moral standing'.

Anyway we were discussion the pro and cons of letting the electorate elect a PM directly. Personally I think that IF that would be done, a lot of the rules and regulations on parliament, right/duties of MP, PM, cabinet members and lots of other things would need to be amended as well to make things fit.

As it is the PM as elected MP can vote in parliament, a voter elected PM could not. MPs selected by the PM for his/her cabinet can vote in parliament unless they relinquish their seat (or unless there's a case of 'conflict of interest'). If a PM is voter elected (s)he must also be able to select the cabinet otherwise the PM position would be hollow. A cabinet directly elected could created traumatic situations (in principle) and is therefor to be avoided.

Conclusion seems to be the continue with the cureent system, but maybe add some extra checks and balances. Strictly speaking with 'democratic' minded MPs extra measures may not be necessary.

Don't faint but I agree with all of that and I take your point on the Yingluck issue.I was really just trying to make out that there is a legitimacy for a leader that comes from national electoral endorsement.

The other point relates to the basic error - not yours I appreciate - that a PM is elected by MPs in the Westminster parliamentary system.I have pointed out this mistake a couple times.

[LazarusRising]

This guy needs to start focussing on developing a new career - politics is over for him. Time to move on Mark, your accumulation of failures has reached its natural limit. Sayonara sunshine.

[sawadee1947]

Puh, still afraid the "reds" would win ?? (as always)

[CarlTyson]

Election

There won't be any elections in a long time.

[chotthee]

Puh, still afraid the "reds" would win ?? (as always)

Red cannot win all the time.

Sometime Black also win, like the US Prime Minister is Black.

[rickirs]

Listening to the NRC and CDC one gets the idea that the governance of Thailand is unique in all the world. There is not a single style of government anywhere that Thailand can adopt in part or in whole, albeit it seems the Chinese politburo comes the closest.

As one NRC member has said, "no country has had the cultural history of Thailand, never having been conqured or being a colony." This really shows an unwillingness to change the manner of governance in Thailand and an underlying effort to simply return to the governance of old, counterbalanced with an occassional coup. How can Thailand ever expect to be a leader in the ASEAN Community?

[chotthee]

Listening to the NRC and CDC one gets the idea that the governance of Thailand is unique in all the world. There is not a single style of government anywhere that Thailand can adopt in part or in whole, albeit it seems the Chinese politburo comes the closest.

As one NRC member has said, "no country has had the cultural history of Thailand, never having been conqured or being a colony." This really shows an unwillingness to change the manner of governance in Thailand and an underlying effort to simply return to the governance of old, counterbalanced with an occassional coup. How can Thailand ever expect to be a leader in the ASEAN Community?

And why not? May I ask?

[Presto]

Some of you should read up about how democracy works in the Netherlands, which accidentally also has a King. With just a tiny bit more legal power than the King of Thailand.

And the PM is certainly not elected in NL, let alone how the government is formed, considering the number of political parties.

My point: it seems to work somehow. Doesn't mean it would work in Thailand.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Presto

[whybother]

Some of you should read up about how democracy works in the Netherlands, which accidentally also has a King. With just a tiny bit more legal power than the King of Thailand.

And the PM is certainly not elected in NL, let alone how the government is formed, considering the number of political parties.

My point: it seems to work somehow. Doesn't mean it would work in Thailand.

"accidentally also has a King"

When did that accident happen?

[Presto]

Some of you should read up about how democracy works in the Netherlands, which accidentally also has a King. With just a tiny bit more legal power than the King of Thailand.

And the PM is certainly not elected in NL, let alone how the government is formed, considering the number of political parties.

My point: it seems to work somehow. Doesn't mean it would work in Thailand.

"accidentally also has a King"

When did that accident happen?

That accident happened a long time ago ... :-D

Edited December 11, 2014 by Presto

[ggt]

This is laughable Thai logic...

Thailand has never had a group of government officials who were without corruption and abuse of power in my lifetime...

Sending people to government having been elected by the people is no guarantee of success from power and corrupt practices...

The military does not need to be seduced by power...they already have all the power...and are attacking corruption in all areas of Thai government and culture...give them a chance before going back to the style of democracy which has failed many times already...IMHO

[Postmaster]

Orac. Don't agree with you. Abisit(spelling)knows he couldn't win that but we want the Democrats back, no more Thaksins so

we should let him have his say to play it the way Democrats want to get back them back in power.

[JAG]

" 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.

Good oh, lets have an election then.