Differing opinions force NRC panel spokesman

[webfact]

Differing opinions force NRC panel spokesman
KRIS BHROMSUTHI
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- PRASARN MARUKPITAK, spokesman for the National Reform Council panel on political reform, announced yesterday that he was step?ping down ahead of the NRC debate on political reform scheduled for today.

He said his decision stemmed from the fact that his personal opinion is in contrast to that of the panel, which has chosen to propose the idea of directly electing the prime minister and cabi?net members.

Prasarn explained that he could not possibly announce the committee's proposals if they were against his own opinion, as this would cause confusion - especially when it comes to the direct election of the PM and cabinet.

Hence, he said, he believes it is in the best interest of the public if he steps down as panel spokesman.

Prasarn also insisted that there were no personal conflicts between him and other members of the panel, even though his reform ideas were very dif?ferent from theirs.

When panel chairman Sombat Thamrongthanyawong revealed that his committee had initially decided to propose the direct election of top gov?ernment people, the proposal drew both praise and criticism from promi?nent figures and organisations in the country. It has also been one of the subjects drawing the most speculation over the past few weeks.

However, Prasarn has made it clear that he does not agree with the panel's decision.

"I do not agree with the proposal that favours the directly election of a PM and cabinet members, because it would not solve the ongoing problem of weak checks and balances, and elec?toral fraud," he said.

He added that this direct-election system would only be beneficial for wealthy candidates because they will need to finance a nationwide cam?paign, build a nationwide political network and have effective campaign management. Candidates would also require huge sums of money to pur?chase representation rights via media outlets.

"Since 2005, we experienced strong governments led by Thaksin [shinawatra] and [his sister] Yingluck, and such a proposal will only make future governments stronger, thus worsening the key problem that we are trying to solve."

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Differing-opinions-force-NRC-panel-spokesman-30250022.html

-- The Nation 2014-12-17

[chainarong]

I agree with Khun Prasarn but beg to differ that Government strengthened with the Thaksin and Yingluck Shinawatra Governments , nepotism strengthened , corruption strengthen, however the subject of direct elections will result in the rich still in control and the country in just a bigger mess as before the Coup. nothing it seems has been learned, except how to continue to feather one's nest.

[smutcakes]

I agree with Khun Prasarn but beg to differ that Government strengthened with the Thaksin and Yingluck Shinawatra Governments , nepotism strengthened , corruption strengthen, however the subject of direct elections will result in the rich still in control and the country in just a bigger mess as before the Coup. nothing it seems has been learned, except how to continue to feather one's nest.

just seems like an all out push for certain groups to band together and use their financial power and get their person elected. Dangerous game to play but when they have all the state coffers, the army coffers and control of what can and cannot be done, including red carding any proper competition, i am sure they are confident of getting their man in the top spot. EG. General Prawit.

[Lorn]

I agree with Khun Prasarn but beg to differ that Government strengthened with the Thaksin and Yingluck Shinawatra Governments , nepotism strengthened , corruption strengthen, however the subject of direct elections will result in the rich still in control and the country in just a bigger mess as before the Coup. nothing it seems has been learned, except how to continue to feather one's nest.

You aren't disagreeing. You are saying exactly what he said. Did you not read the last sentence. He is using strong as in powerful i.e can do what they want without checks and balances.

[pisico]

Direct elections will result in Democrats losing every election, as they have since 1995.

What is he worried about? The army will always be at a ready to correct any election outcome; by hook or by crook.

Thainess in action.

Edited December 17, 2014 by pisico

[ChrisY1]

If the proposal for an elected PM goes ahead.....then does that person need to be affiliated to the elected party.....or could he be an independent?

Being with the elected party would seem obvious....but I'm not 100% clear.

Edited December 17, 2014 by ChrisY1

[Eric Loh]

This is totally absurd when you consider the NRC was formed to solve the nation conflicts and yet within themselves, they have conflicts. The NRC must be unanimous in their decision like a juror system. The simply can't have members not agreeing. This is a farce and reforms highly skewed if one side is dominating the agenda.

[FangFerang]

""I do not agree with the proposal that favours the directly election of a PM and cabinet members, because it would not solve the ongoing problem of weak checks and balances, and elec?toral fraud," he said."

I agree. the only way I can imagine checks and balances to work is to require a Super Majority -- a 2/3 vote -- to change the Charter or to fund any legislation that is over a specific cost.

Unfortunately, all sides want two things that are antithetical to occur, being a set of checks and balances while simultaneously maintaining a winner-takes-all benefit for elected parties. The logic is circular, contradictory, empirically unworkable, and repetitive of past charters and their failings. A conspiracy theorist would say this lack of a Super Majority would let a Democrat government play winner-take-all while simultaneously guaranteeing another coup if the PTP are re-elected. I won't go that far, but it smells like a kettle of fermented fish boiled in khlong water.

[rickirs]

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

This is totally absurd when you consider the NRC was formed to solve the nation conflicts and yet within themselves, they have conflicts. The NRC must be unanimous in their decision like a juror system. The simply can't have members not agreeing. This is a farce and reforms highly skewed if one side is dominating the agenda.

But since the NCPO sets the agenda and ultimately must approve any reforms, isn't the task of the NRC already skewed?

[rickirs]

"... such a proposal will only make future governments stronger ''

Regardless of how the PM and cabinet are chosen, no future government will ever be strong enough to preclude a military power that lurks beneath the surface of electoral normalcy ready to swallow the constitution and government leadership should the nation lead into a direction against its own best interests. Selecting the PM and cabinet could be just as valid as a with game of darts or a hand of High-Low.