NRC set to see hot debate on directly elected Thai PM

[webfact]

NRC set to see hot debate on directly elected PM
THE NATION

Members will vote on the proposals by 18 panels before they are forwarded to Constitution Drafting Committee

BANGKOK: -- A hot debate looms this week in the National Reform Council regarding the proposal for direct election of the prime minister and cabinet members.

Two conflicting ideas have been mooted - by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC), which prefers a parliamentary vote, and the National Reform Council (NRC) committee on political reform, which has proposed direct election.

Earlier, the suggestion by Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, chairman of the panel on political reform, for direct election of the PM and the cabinet members had been opposed by CDC member Suchit Bunbongkarn and some other charter drafters, as they believed the system is not suitable for the country. Such a move would also change the parliamentary system of governance entirely, they had argued.

The president of the NRC, Thienchay Kiranandana, had highlighted political, and legal and judicial reforms.

Meanwhile, NRC member Wanchai Sornsiri, as the whip's spokesman, added that this week's meeting from today until Wednesday would see 18 NRC committees make a scrutiny of reform proposals.

Wanchai said once all the members have expressed themselves in the debate, they would vote on the proposals to decide if they should be forwarded to the CDC for consideration.

"I believe the vote would resolve all issues as the NRC will forward the proposals to the CDC. Moreover, there would be no voting on any specific topic, but rather the voting would be on the whole proposal," the spokesman added.

He said the topic of direct election of the PM would see many members join the debate because there are contrasting opinions within the NRC members on the idea.

He also said as it was an unprecedented concept, members have doubts on whether the system has adequate checks and balances or whether it would give the prime minister too much authority.

The NRC meeting will also cover another important reform topic, regarding the legal and justice system.

The NRC panel on the legal and justice system has proposed reforming the police department because of the department's manipulation of many cases, even forging evidence in some cases.

The panel has asked for a committee to investigate and closely scrutinise the police department in order to prevent unlawful actions.

In order to achieve this, the panel has called for the winding up of the Office of Police Commission and Royal Thai Police, and instead set up a new council for police affairs.

Voicing concern at the excessive authority of the central police department, they have suggested a sharing of power with local administrations.

The chairman of this panel, Seree Suwanphanont, earlier said one of the areas being discussed in the legal area is to prevent cases before they happen, and for the justice system to focus more on how citizens would benefit from it.

Also, the committee wants to consider strengthening public participation in the legal process, something most citizens avoid, as they feel victimised by legal issues that they have no knowledge of. A panel on the legal and justice system has been proposed.

Regarding legal reform, the panel recommended forming a committee to scrutinise the national law and propose legal articles to Parliament.

In addition, the Election Commission and National Anti-Corruption Commission should have five-year tenures, and they must continue until the new commission members are ready to take over.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/NRC-set-to-see-hot-debate-on-directly-elected-PM-30249840.html

-- The Nation 2014-12-15

[bkkgooner]

Everyone sees directly elected Thai PM and thinks wouldn't this be great for the red shirts but imagine one of these army generals being directly elected as PM?

This country is going to be turned into a conservative state based on one of those horrible countries in the middle east where people get caned for drinking alcohol or stoned to death for cheating on their husband if the army stays in power for too long.

[chainarong]

A Directly elected P.M. indicates that the Ruling elite have no intention of relinquishing power and no matter what spin is placed on this subject and yes the people will have a say in choosing a PM , the ones selected by the blue bloods, I make no apologies to PM Prauth in saying that your Coup Sir is a charade and should be taken at face value , two faced that is.

[whybother]

A Directly elected P.M. indicates that the Ruling elite have no intention of relinquishing power and no matter what spin is placed on this subject and yes the people will have a say in choosing a PM , the ones selected by the blue bloods, I make no apologies to PM Prauth in saying that your Coup Sir is a charade and should be taken at face value , two faced that is.

What are you going on about? How does a directly elected PM indicate anything of the sort?

[Roadman]

Have the NRC considered the implication of directly electing PM's and cabinet members from other governments especially their western trading partners?

While Thailand is getting cut some slack from most western countries who politically make standard hard line statements, the good will of quiet understanding of the situation that led to the coup and current reform will start dissapearing if the hair brain idea of direct appointment takes hold. Prayuth needs to show leadership in principle of the democratic reform he was seeking and move those in the NRC away from this option. Options like this are not the answer. Strenghtening the controls and penalties on election won PM's and MP's is.

Thankfully the CDC holds to democratic principles in their considerations over the NRC.

Regardless it is good robust open debate, which is something that has been sadly lacking in Thailand for at least this century, and including during the last ill thought out attempt in 06 by the Army to expect to change thai governance over night without debate, discussion and compromise. That in its self is a real positive.

[whybother]

Have the NRC considered the implication of directly electing PM's and cabinet members from other governments especially their western trading partners?

While Thailand is getting cut some slack from most western countries who politically make standard hard line statements, the good will of quiet understanding of the situation that led to the coup and current reform will start dissapearing if the hair brain idea of direct appointment takes hold. Prayuth needs to show leadership in principle of the democratic reform he was seeking and move those in the NRC away from this option. Options like this are not the answer. Strenghtening the controls and penalties on election won PM's and MP's is.

Thankfully the CDC holds to democratic principles in their considerations over the NRC.

Regardless it is good robust open debate, which is something that has been sadly lacking in Thailand for at least this century, and including during the last ill thought out attempt in 06 by the Army to expect to change thai governance over night without debate, discussion and compromise. That in its self is a real positive.

I missed where they were discussing the possibility of direct *appointment* of the PM.

What they are proposing is a direct *election* of the PM by the people. That is, instead of (or in addition to) voting for constituency and party list MPs and the MPs electing the PM, the PEOPLE will VOTE directly for the PM. For example, they will vote for Yingluck or Abhisit for PM, instead of just voting for their local candidate or the party.

Under the 1997 and 2007 constitution, the PM was elected by elected MPs.

[wabothai]

Kind of funny as the new PM elected himself.

[connda]

Direct election - where everyone has a vote. Bad? Only if you are the one rigging the system.

But with that said. When Thailand adopts the US model, where corporations and multi-billionaires saturate their 'chosen' with massive campaign donations that exponentially out-weigh anything that individual voters could contribute, and the electorate is enticed to vote for the glossiest, shiniest, and most 'buffed' candidate that money can promote, then I guess parliamentary elections can be best controlled by those who wish to control. Imhfo

[rickirs]

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

Have the NRC considered the implication of directly electing PM's and cabinet members from other governments especially their western trading partners?

While Thailand is getting cut some slack from most western countries who politically make standard hard line statements, the good will of quiet understanding of the situation that led to the coup and current reform will start dissapearing if the hair brain idea of direct appointment takes hold. Prayuth needs to show leadership in principle of the democratic reform he was seeking and move those in the NRC away from this option. Options like this are not the answer. Strenghtening the controls and penalties on election won PM's and MP's is.

Thankfully the CDC holds to democratic principles in their considerations over the NRC.

Regardless it is good robust open debate, which is something that has been sadly lacking in Thailand for at least this century, and including during the last ill thought out attempt in 06 by the Army to expect to change thai governance over night without debate, discussion and compromise. That in its self is a real positive.

I missed where they were discussing the possibility of direct *appointment* of the PM.

What they are proposing is a direct *election* of the PM by the people. That is, instead of (or in addition to) voting for constituency and party list MPs and the MPs electing the PM, the PEOPLE will VOTE directly for the PM. For example, they will vote for Yingluck or Abhisit for PM, instead of just voting for their local candidate or the party.

Under the 1997 and 2007 constitution, the PM was elected by elected MPs.

Worldwide there are 28 constitutional monarchies with a ceremonial monarchy (ie., Japan, Spain, Australia) and none have a directly elected PM nor cabinet. The British Commonwealth has 16 countries that are constitutional monarchies with Queen Elizabeth as Head of State and the PM as Head of Government. Just like Thailand. And the PM is selected by majority of the parliament, sometimes requiring coalitions of several parties to reach majority. The cabinet is selected by the PM with approval from the parliament. Obviously, the parliament system of governance can be successfully used to sustain a participatory democratic process. And with the exception of Thailand, you will not find a military in those countries that can and does overthrow the governments.

If Thailand chooses to directly elect its PM, it will be eunique. it will be as if the nation was a republic with a presidential system of governance but that would be a paradox. In a presidential system the president is both the Head of State and Head of Government. Such a powerful position deserves direct election. But the PM of Thailand is only Head of Government. So the benefits of direct-elected PM seem illusionary at best.

[whybother]

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

Have the NRC considered the implication of directly electing PM's and cabinet members from other governments especially their western trading partners?

While Thailand is getting cut some slack from most western countries who politically make standard hard line statements, the good will of quiet understanding of the situation that led to the coup and current reform will start dissapearing if the hair brain idea of direct appointment takes hold. Prayuth needs to show leadership in principle of the democratic reform he was seeking and move those in the NRC away from this option. Options like this are not the answer. Strenghtening the controls and penalties on election won PM's and MP's is.

Thankfully the CDC holds to democratic principles in their considerations over the NRC.

Regardless it is good robust open debate, which is something that has been sadly lacking in Thailand for at least this century, and including during the last ill thought out attempt in 06 by the Army to expect to change thai governance over night without debate, discussion and compromise. That in its self is a real positive.

I missed where they were discussing the possibility of direct *appointment* of the PM.

What they are proposing is a direct *election* of the PM by the people. That is, instead of (or in addition to) voting for constituency and party list MPs and the MPs electing the PM, the PEOPLE will VOTE directly for the PM. For example, they will vote for Yingluck or Abhisit for PM, instead of just voting for their local candidate or the party.

Under the 1997 and 2007 constitution, the PM was elected by elected MPs.

Worldwide there are 28 constitutional monarchies with a ceremonial monarchy (ie., Japan, Spain, Australia) and none have a directly elected PM nor cabinet. The British Commonwealth has 16 countries that are constitutional monarchies with Queen Elizabeth as Head of State and the PM as Head of Government. Just like Thailand. And the PM is selected by majority of the parliament, sometimes requiring coalitions of several parties to reach majority. The cabinet is selected by the PM with approval from the parliament. Obviously, the parliament system of governance can be successfully used to sustain a participatory democratic process. And with the exception of Thailand, you will not find a military in those countries that can and does overthrow the governments.

If Thailand chooses to directly elect its PM, it will be eunique. it will be as if the nation was a republic with a presidential system of governance but that would be a paradox. In a presidential system the president is both the Head of State and Head of Government. Such a powerful position deserves direct election. But the PM of Thailand is only Head of Government. So the benefits of direct-elected PM seem illusionary at best.

Agreed. I was just questioning the use of the word "appointed".

[ExPratt]

No one thinks directly electing a PM and Ministers is a good idea,over-complicate an already complicated process. I think a police "Council" is a decent proposal

Edited December 15, 2014 by ExPratt