Contentious issues on the NRC agenda

[webfact]

Contentious issues on the NRC agenda
Khanittha Thepphajorn,
Olan Lertrudtanadumrongkul
The Nation

Proposals of 18 sub-panels to be debated

BANGKOK: -- Some contentious reform issues will come up today for three days of deliberation by the National Reform Council, which will decide on whether to accept 246 recommendations from 18 reform sub-panels.

Among the controversial proposals expected to see heated debate are the direct election of the prime minister and the Cabinet and the make-up of Parliament and changes to the election system.

The NRC is scheduled to officially forward the reform proposals to Borwornsak Uwanno, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, on Friday.

The NRC is responding to provision 31 of the interim charter, which stipulates that the NRC must present its recommendations to the CDC within 60 days after its first meeting held on September 19.

To bring about national reconciliation, strict control is proposed against hate speech disseminated through the media to prevent ill-intentioned and politically vested interest groups from instigating political conflicts and sowing national division that has taken place since 2004.

The establishment of a state agency is proposed to nurture national reconciliation and end political conflicts.

The proposals on press freedom emphasise that freedom comes with great responsibility. The media would be protected against the domination, influence and interference of capitalists and against state control.

Under one of the proposals, during a run-up to the general election, a neutral Cabinet would carry on as a caretaker government to prevent an elected government from ill-treating MP candidates or any unjustified actions to gain political leverage. The permanent secretaries of every ministry will act as caretaker minister. They will elect from among themselves a caretaker PM.

If a permanent secretary is chosen as PM, a deputy permanent secretary from that ministry will take over as caretaker minister. A caretaker PM has the authority to seek royal endorsement for the appointment of an elected PM. The public can gather signatures to seek the impeachment of politicians and sponsor bills, which must be tabled for its first reading three months after Parliament accepts the bill for consideration.

They are allowed greater power to check the government's projects and policies.

Although politicians will still be punished if they commit election fraud such as vote-buying, political parties will not be dissolved unless they commit grave offence against the monarchy, democracy, national security and the national interest.

Parliament will consist of upper and lower houses. The Lower House will comprise 350 MPs elected through only a constituency system, as there will be no party-list system. A constituency can have up to three MP candidates. One voter can vote for one MP candidate. The first three candidates with the most votes win the seats in that constituency.

The Senate is made up of two parts. Voters directly elect 77 senators from 77 provinces and 77 senators are appointed by legally established professional organisations and other professions.

One of the reform panels has also proposed setting up a court to hear consumer-related cases and establish a national committee to evaluate and recruit high executives in state agencies.

Another proposal is to set up an independent agency - the Parliament Budget Office - with duties to recommend financial and disciplinary policies and evaluate political parties' election campaign policies.

On finance and budgeting, more public disclosure is underlined for auction, procurement and other procedures. A parallel system of function-based budgeting and area-based budgeting is proposed to increase public participation and decision-making in the use of natural resources.

To respond to local needs and solve local problems, output/result-oriented budgeting is proposed. A new national agency is proposed to promote local administrative organisations and balance power between local and central governments.

To reform the justice system, a committee is proposed to be in charge of annual reshuffles, transfers and assignments of police to prevent political interference and domination in the agency. The National Police will be decentralised at both central and local levels.

Cases involving politicians must be tried at the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions. The Supreme Court will appoint five judges to hear each case. Nine judges are to be appointed to the Constitutional Court for one six-year term.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Contentious-issues-on-the-NRC-agenda-30249843.html


-- The Nation 2014-12-15

[paymaster]

Can anyone enlighten me as to whether any other nations directly elect prime minister and cabinet members? I know many elect a president but Thailand is a costitutional monarchy and His Majesty the King ia head of state here. It seems like it would be too complex an election to contemplate with each candidate peddling their wares to solicit votes. Perish the thought!

It seems like an uderhanded way to kick off a Republic of Thailand movement.

[rickirs]

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

Can anyone enlighten me as to whether any other nations directly elect prime minister and cabinet members? I know many elect a president but Thailand is a costitutional monarchy and His Majesty the King ia head of state here. It seems like it would be too complex an election to contemplate with each candidate peddling their wares to solicit votes. Perish the thought!
It seems like an uderhanded way to kick off a Republic of Thailand movement.

A republic uses a presidential system of governance such as USA, South Korea, and France. The president is directly elected by the people. None have an elected presidential cabinet. The president is both the Head of Government and Head of State which may be the main reason to justify direct election. A country with a monarch cannot be a republic.

I found (29) countries having constitutional monarchies with 'ceremonial monarchies' such as Japan, Australia, and Spain. (16) are part of the British Commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth II as the Head of State. All have a parliamentary system of governance wherein the Head of Government is selected by majority of parliament members. None have an elected PM cabinet. None of the electrorate seem to have a problem voting for parliament candidates usually aligned by political parties as those parliamentary systems continue exist and provide for orderly and peaceful transfer of power.

Since 1933 Thailand's system of governance has been based on democratic principles common with parliamentary systems found in other constitutional monarchies. However, unlike the other constitutional monarchies Thailand has had repeated military coups that disrupt and aborgate the nation's parlimentary governance process. The current Junta as NCPO has given itself absolute power over the three branches of Thai government and reinforced its position over government elements (ie., police and civil service) with its chief as PM. So long as the Thai public has no control over the sanctity and permamence of its constitution, how a PM and cabinet is selected is ultimately (and sadly) moot.

[Zooheekock]

Some contentious reform issues will come up today for three days of deliberation by the National Reform Council, ...The NRC is scheduled to officially forward the reform proposals to Borwornsak Uwanno, chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, on Friday.

And who is Borwornsak Uwanno? He's the moon-faced git on the left. I'm sure in his hands (now he's put down his whistle), we can look forward to a truly magnificent new constitution.

[candide]

Do I understand well?

"Parliament will consist of upper and lower houses. The Lower House will comprise 350 MPs elected through only a constituency system, as there will be no party-list system. A constituency can have up to three MP candidates. One voter can vote for one MP candidate. The first three candidates with the most votes win the seats in that constituency."

[candide]

Do I understand well?

"Parliament will consist of upper and lower houses. The Lower House will comprise 350 MPs elected through only a constituency system, as there will be no party-list system. A constituency can have up to three MP candidates. One voter can vote for one MP candidate. The first three candidates with the most votes win the seats in that constituency."

if the article is accurate and if I understand it, let's imagine the following situation: in each constituency candidate of party A gets 50% of vote, candidate of party B gets 30% and candidate of party C gets 20%. So the three parties will have the same number of MPs (1/3 for each) in lower house?

[brucec64]

Do I understand well?

"Parliament will consist of upper and lower houses. The Lower House will comprise 350 MPs elected through only a constituency system, as there will be no party-list system. A constituency can have up to three MP candidates. One voter can vote for one MP candidate. The first three candidates with the most votes win the seats in that constituency."

if the article is accurate and if I understand it, let's imagine the following situation: in each constituency candidate of party A gets 50% of vote, candidate of party B gets 30% and candidate of party C gets 20%. So the three parties will have the same number of MPs (1/3 for each) in lower house?

Interesting to note from this article that a case study of the 1997 was that the reform moved away from this system to "Combat Corruption through Electoral Reform" http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Faceproject.org%2Fero-en%2Ftopics%2Felectoral-systems%2FThailand%2520Combating%2520Corruption%2520through%2520Electoral%2520Reform.doc&ei=TQWPVK-TJ9SJuAT_poLgCg&usg=AFQjCNEoZ0GXTSi0WpjEzkNZsFemt95CFg&sig2=JGWhv9pVIoHLI8s5xs7V9A

A party can field more than one candidate, so a popular party can still take all the available MP slots.

But, there were two major implications:

1) These multi-seat districts had tended to produce multiple parties in each district, which in turn had contributed to the presence of a large number of parties in the House....These coalition governments were generally indecisive and short-lived. Reformers hoped that by changing the electoral system they could bring about a reduction in the number of parties and a reduction in government inaction and instability.

2) Second, the system pitted candidates from the same party against one another in the same district. Although each party nominated a team of candidates, they often tended to campaign against each other rather than trying to get voters to support all of the party team with all of their votes. This intra-party competition undermined the value of party labels to candidates and voters and contributed to making the parties factionalized and incohesive.

It seems that the purpose of this change is to dilute the power of one dominating party (i.e. PTP). A cynic would say that, since this method has already proven to not be any less corrupt than the current method, the intent of the change is gerrymandering, pure and simple.